Immigration

If Defended Borders Make a Nation, Then the U.S. Has a Pretty Short History

|

David Friedman, author of the anarchist classic The Machinery of Freedom, has some history lessons for those who believe that a zealously defended border is necessary to make a nation:

A commenter on my previous post wrote that "Having open borders renders the entire concept of a country meaningless." ….

1. Ellis Island was only established as a federal immigration point—the first such—in 1890.

2. The first federal restrictions on immigration were passed in 1875; they excluded criminals, prostitutes, and Chinese contract laborers. Congress passed the first general law restricting immigration in 1882, banning immigration from China. In 1917 the restriction was extended to immigrants from other Asian Pacific countries. Numerical immigration quotas only came in in 1921, but did not apply to immigrants from Latin America until 1965.

3. While it is hard to be certain, it does not sound as though there was any effective mechanism for enforcing restrictions in the early period. That was obviously true for immigration across land borders, and I do not think there was any enforcement mechanism covering all ports that would have prevented someone from simply walking off a ship and blending into the local population—easy to do anywhere with a significant group of the immigrant's ethnicity…..

My conclusion is that if the concept of a country is meaningless without at least nominal restrictions on immigration, the U.S. only came into existence about 1875. If the restrictions have to be real—i.e. effectively enforced—the U.S., if it exists at all, has been a country for only a few decades….

It used to be, in general, a passportless world. It is always good to return to Reason's classic 2006 cover package story "Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever."

NEXT: Elmo Puppeteer Quits in Underage Sex Scandal

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. The passport and border controls – yet another wonderful fallout of the fucking Great War aka WW I.

    1. Meh – big-headed continental Europeanism if you ask me. I always thought of it as a “pretty-good war”.

      Carry on.

  2. Well it’s different now *mumble mumble mumble*. Third world savages!!! Protect American wages!!!

    /Slappy, Mallory, & Santorum

    1. THIS!!!111! ^^^^

      1) IT’S DIFFERENT NOW!!!

      2) ANKUR BAYBEEZZZ!!111!!one!!1

    2. BIG GUVURNMENT HISPANICS DERP DERP DERP! THEY WONT VOTE FOR TEAM RED, WE’RE SCREWED!

      1. SANTA CLAUS DROPS OFF ANKUR BAYBEEZZ AN TEH STUFFS FER PEEPL LOL wut?

      2. Wow, so fucking insightfull dude. Man where do you come up with this stuff? Thanks to you, I know that most hispanics are secretly libertarians. They don’t like their government provided schooling and food stamps. I ask an undocumented mexican woman recently what she thought of the Libertarian Party. She said she loved the idea of having to pull herself up by her own bootstraps. She was studying calculus at the moment and wanted the government out the way so she could start a buisness and “build that.” And she didn’t think it was unfair that white people inheiret money from their parents while immigrants like her have to clean their houses. And she didn’t care that most libertarians were white. She said “I don’t care about color, I just want to be an American, my ancestors were Mexican for generations but I’m just going to give that up to celebrate the rainbow nation.”

        1. Not sure if serious…

          1. The sad thing is, he/she/it IS serious. See below.

            1. What’s not to like about Mexicans, anyway? They love showing me their hot, hot women, and I can mute their terrible music.

              1. Pitbull is Cuban. But I agree with your point about Latin women 😉

                1. MEXICAN I SAYS

                  1. The duck of death.

                2. From what I can tell, for every hot Latin woman there are about 200 dumpy and/or ugly ones.

                  1. I think you are really mistaken Papaya. The kind of woman you describe definitely exists, but attractive Latinas are not a rarity at all

                    1. I’m going by what I see on the streets of San Francisco. Maybe we get a much higher proportion of the uglies for some reson, but I can assure you that Telemundo-quality babes are strikingly rare.

                    2. That’s “reason” of course.

                      IF ONLY WE HAD A PREVIEW BUTTON THAT WORKED.

                    3. Telemundo-quality babes aren’t exactly common among white girls either. I go to school in LA, and a lot of the young women who work at restaurants (even just cashiers at fast food joints) and stores nearby are attractive. I haven’t spent much time in SF, so I can’t speak for what it’s like up there.

                      I think a lot of it is the high obesity rate (though that’s true for Americans in general). In Argentina (which I visited in May), there is very little obesity, and I thought the girls there were smoking hot. It is true that Argentina is pretty white (mostly Spanish and Italian), but I would say people who were visibly Mestizo (mixed indigenous and white) were about 20-25% and I thought the Mestiza women were very beautiful as well, probably more so (IMO) than the lighter-skinned women there

                    4. In SF I’d say the the hot/not ratio was best for white women and next best for Asian women. Around here hot Hispanic women seem rarer than hot black women. I’ll admit I don’t live in the swankiest neighborhood, though.

                      When I was a kid in whitebread suburbia, I got the idea that most Asian women were hot, because pretty much the only ones I saw were in movies and on TV and in magazines. Only after moving here many years ago and seeing lots of plain ones did I realize how skewed my earlier sample was.

                  2. From what I can tell, for every hot Latin woman there are about 200 dumpy and/or ugly ones.

                    Maybe where you live. Lotta smoking hot women, Latina and otherwise, in Hawaii.

              2. I had to watch a whole minute of that before any hot woman appeared. What gives?

          2. That’s Skippy’s concept of sarcasm.

        2. Ok, American, you’ve convinced me. I see the error of my ways. All Mexicans are lazy, stupid, violent, jealous communists who just wanna come here to get welfare and give the country back to Mexico. None of them even speak English. And we can’t let them take this country from white people, who as we all know, are all libertarian free-market capitalists who hate the drug war, love civil liberties, and hate the unnecessary wars. We just can’t let in people who won’t vote for TEAM RED. You’ve convinced me man.

          1. Me too. I’ll just have to hang up my libertarian spurs, become a racist and register Republican.

            OM, sorry buddy, we can’t be friends anymore. American (god it pains me to call him that, let’s just call him Fuckhead from now on)…Fuckhead…has shown me that “your kind” is just here to take what is rightfully mine. I must hate you now.

            What’s the story with these 3 or 4 new fucking trolls? Mary back?

            1. see here:
              http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07…..migration/
              Want to change your name now?

              1. Um..no Fuckhead, I don’t.

                1. You really don’t see it? Fuckhead? That’s Ayn Rand’s chosen succesorer telling you what he thinks about our country’s immigration policies

          2. All Mexicans are lazy, stupid, violent, jealous communists

            No, those are the Irish

            Mexicans are excellent fruit-pickers

        3. My naaaaame…. is Jos?……. Jim?nez

  3. DEY TUK R JERBZ!!!11!!ELEVENTY!!11!

    1. DERKA DURRRRR!

  4. Native Americans – please tell us about your “border control” policies from the early 1700’s – the late 1800’s, and how you went about enforcing same.

    Anyone? Anyone?

    Runs Like Bueller? Runs Like Bueller?

    Anyone?

    1. Native Americans – please tell us about your “border control” policies from the early 1700’s – the late 1800’s, and how you went about enforcing same.

      “Restrictions?” Heck, I have an ancestor who was sentenced to “transportation” to Virginia, and arrived in July 1635.

    2. Also tell us about how welcoming a foriegn people who hate you and your values is such a great idea.

      1. I guess we should do border checks and have each immigrant swear proper political affiliation?

        Awesome – literal fascism FTW.

        1. Awesome – literal fascism FTW.

          I don’t know how much you have read up on Slappy’s AP3 nonsense, but it is literally fascism. Racist, nationalistic, queasy-socialist fascism. Lindbergh is one of their heroes, FFS.

          It’s the American Nazi Party with enough brain cells not to plaster themselves with swastikas and Messicans are the new Jews.

          1. So, how does he feel about Puerto Ricans?

            1. He’s not a fan.

              1. He probably favors Puerto Rican independence just so he can legally stop them from coming here

          2. “Slappy’s AP3 nonsense”
            Seriously????
            You didn’t even spell it right. You guys can’t beat me with logic and reason, so you make up some shit about me being a part of racist political party you CAN”T EVEN SPELL. Wow.

            1. But he’s TOTALLY not who you think he is.

            2. Sorry, I’ll spell it right: N-A-Z-I.

            3. Interesting that you know how spell A3P. Most people not associated with it wouldn’t even know what it stood for.

              1. Yeah, usually when I annoyingly interject with an “It’s AYN, not ‘Ann'”, I’m at least honest enough to admit why I did it.

                1. see this:
                  http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07…..migration/
                  Still admiring dear leader?

              2. American Penis Purity Party. They want cock, and only cock, all the cocking day long.

                1. American clearly is the guy I saw at the Clark station with with “Racial Purity Is America’s Security” sticker on the back of his pickup.

                  Literally gave me chills down the spine….

      2. Also tell us about how welcoming a foriegn [sic] people who hate you and your values is such a great idea.

        It’s called having principles, pig.

      3. American| 11.20.12 @ 1:25PM |#

        Also tell us about how welcoming a foriegn people who hate you and your values is such a great idea.

        Mexicans hate freedom.

        Oh, and god. Man, they *totally* aren’t like, religious or anything. Family values? They don’t even like having children.

        Viva zapata~!

        1. Of course they are total “family values” types, after all they have a higher birthrate than white Americans. And they only have a 53% illegitamcy rate!

          1. Sweet, that means gay couples top the family values list with a 0% illegitimacy rate.

  5. The internet means knowledge has increased, open borders means men can move to and fro, and passports are the mark of the beast. WE’RE BRINGING ABOUT THE END TIMES.

  6. You ignore the act of 1807 which prohibited the importation of “any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.”

    So I guess the US did have border that was defended and could keep out people and since the Constitution authorized this law in 1787 then the US borders existed then as well

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sl004.asp

    1. Importation for sale and voluntary immigration are not the same thing, but thanks for playing.

      Also, I’m not sure where you got the idea that the border was “defended”, since that law was widely flouted.

      1. A certain class of people were prohibited from entering by law.

        Also the US border was defended, the Army had most of its forces in border or harbor forts. Also the US Revenue Cutter Service was established in 1790.

        1. I think that a distinction must be made between “entering” and “being forced to enter”.

          1. Sex, rape, whatever.

          2. It’s the right wing version of political correctness.

        2. Also the US Revenue Cutter Service was established in 1790.

          We could use a revenue cutter service today, if it were also tasked with cutting spending.

      2. Importation for sale and voluntary immigration are not the same thing, but thanks for playing.

        Okaaay… I guess that goes for my “indentured” ancestor too, then. Please consider my comment, above at 1:01 PM, duly modified.

        Also, I’m not sure where you got the idea that the border was “defended”, since that law was widely flouted.

        Like immigration law is widely flouted now. I guess there was some relevance to his comment after all.

        1. Didn’t indentured servants typically voluntarily enter in to the contracts? The black slaves had no say in the matter.

          1. “Didn’t indentured servants typically voluntarily enter in to the contracts?”

            Yes they did… A distinction I’m sure PHOD was aware of when he wrote the comment.

          2. Yes and yes.

    2. To Thomas Jefferson’s chagrin the Canadians certainly defended their border in the War of 1812.

  7. You can have somewhat open borders or you can have a welfare state. Both won’t work.

    1. Or don’t give welfare to immigrants. But then I suppose there is always some twit screaming about positive rights. I’m still for open borders based on moral principle.

      1. No. There is always a scumbag politician looking for a way to buy their votes.

        1. Immigrants can vote?

          1. They certainly don’t have much stopping them from doing so.

          2. After they naturalize, yes.

            1. Right. I mean non-citizens.

    2. You can have somewhat open borders or and you can have a welfare state. Both won’t work.

      There’s nothing saying you can’t actually have both. Which is why it’s not working.

      1. Not the only reason. Nor the biggest one.

        1. Reason for what now?

          1. Reason for magazine of the new millenium!

        2. Sure, but this one or the other nonsense should be taken out back and shot.

    3. you also can have a frontier nation or not have one. for most of our history we had a frontier nation… “go west, young man”. we had space aplenty to invade and steal land from 🙂 native americans.

      we ENCOURAGED homesteading to the point of offering substantial govt. incentives on same in many cases.

      having open borders, as a matter of policy made sense in a way that having open borders NOW, when our entire nation has been homesteaded – it IS different, no matter how much the naysayers derp derp

      whether we should have open borders or to what extent, is of course a good policy question

      1. Send them to Alaska.

      2. DIAF, bitch.

      3. “go west, young man”. we had space aplenty

        Yep, according to Horace “Go West Young Man” Greeley, we had space aplenty… in Eire County, Pennsylvania.

      4. The entire nation isn’t even close to being “homesteaded”.

        Go look up the density of the United States and get back to me.

        1. Oh, is there some free land for the taking I’m unaware of?

          1. Not anymore, but there should be (vast national parks that produce no value).

            Regardless, these United States are nowhere near capacity.

            1. I thought you meant “density” like “how fucking dense ARE you, man?”

              Actually, I still think that would be a good question around this subject.

            2. I disagree. I like having public land I can use. I do get value from it. And I’m 1/3.1×10^6 part owner. (It may not be the most libertarian position, but so be it. I guess I won’t pass the purity test.)

              And it is at capacity, if those who own large tracts of land do not wish to sell it.

              1. What about those with large tracts of land that are not allowed to subdivide it because of government regs?

                1. As with all things, you should be able to do as you please with it, provided you are not infringing on the rights of others in doing so.

          2. Francisco d Anconia| 11.20.12 @ 3:02PM |#

            Oh, is there some free land for the taking I’m unaware of?

            you can have Detroit if you want. we tried to give it back to the indians but they were like, no way paleface. no takebacks.

        2. Ya, we only have to take the land away from evil rich white men and also destroy our nation’s environment.

    4. Can’t we just buy them bus tickets to Sweden?

      /Norway off

    5. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a legitimate dichotomy, why would we choose welfare state?

      1. Because I worked my fingers to the bone for my Social Security and Medicare, Hands off Generation Y-ine!

        –Baby Boomer

  8. http://www.volokh.com

    ” Does tracing the location of a user of an unsecured wireless network constitute a Fourth Amendment search? The court’s answer: No.

    In this case, a Pennsylvania state police officer investigating the distribution of child pornography over peer-to-peer software learned that a computer at a particular IP address was sharing images of child pornography. The investigator, Erdley, obtained a search warrant to search the home associated with the IP address. The search was unsuccessful, however, and Erdley concluded that someone nearby was using the wireless connection from the home that had been left unsecured. With the consent of the homeowner, Kozikowski, Erdley used a software program called “Moocherhunter” to find the physical location of the individual who was accessing the network. Moocherhunter works by measuring the distance between the wireless router and the computer connecting to it: By moving the antenna of the wireless router, and knowing the MAC address of the computer connected to the wireless router, Erdley was able to trace the location of the computer connecting to the wireless router to a specific apartment. Erdley then obtained a search warrant and searched the apartment, finding child pornography on the computer of the defendant, Richard Stanley.

    1. Interesting. I think I am inclined to agree with the court. Particularly since the owner of the router that was being misused cooperated (and didn’t get fucked over for someone else’s crimes as an extra bonus).

      Jesus, it’s not that hard to set a password/key. Which are easy enough to crack, but most people won’t bother.

      1. Everyone in my neighborhood bothers. I’ve always had my own connection and WiFi, but when I’m looking for my connection from the list of available signals, I don’t see unsecured routers anymore.

        YMMV.

        1. I think he meant most people don’t bother to crack the passcodes.

        2. Actually, what I meant was that most people looking for a free connection won’t bother trying to subvert the security, even if it is pretty weak.

    2. So, it wasn’t his wireless connection. It was his neighbor’s. If I invite the police into my house to figure out who’s making himself a sandwich from my fridge while I’m at work, I don’t see how that’s a privacy violation.

      And even if we were talking about the suspect’s unsecured wireless, you still have the issue of whether or not the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would say no, he does not.

      1. If you’re broadcasting a signal, you pretty much have to accept the world can receive it and do with it what they will.

        1. If you’re broadcasting a signal, you pretty much have to accept the world can receive it and do with it what they will.

          The world, yes. The government, no.

          It’s the use of my private information I’m most concerned with. I don’t care that Google tracks where I go on the intertubz. They use that info to improve my interweb experience and they don’t have guns. On the other hand, I don’t want the G data-mining who visits what site so they can build a data base of potential malcontents based on nothing more than an opinion about “what types of people” visit such and such type of site.

          For instance, I just Googled that A3P bullshit above, as I didn’t know what it was (I need a shower). Should the G be able to know that and slide my name into a file of potential white supremacists?

          The Constitution was devised to protect the citizens from the government. Google has more rights than the Feds.

          1. Had to reread after I realized “the G” =! Google. Makes moar sense now.

            1. Oops, didn’t think of that. Sorry. G = gumint

      2. And even if we were talking about the suspect’s unsecured wireless, you still have the issue of whether or not the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would say no, he does not.

        I would think he would still have an expectation of privacy. Just because you left the front door unlocked doesn’t mean anyone can just walk in. Not exactly the same, but pretty close.

        1. If we’re talking about people being able to monitor the traffic over your unsecured wireless, I think it’s more analogous to neighbors being able to see in through your open windows. Don’t like it, get curtains.

    3. It is actually a search, but one with the owner’s consent. I agree, for once, with the court.

  9. A few points:
    1) “Numerical immigration quotas only came in in 1921, but did not apply to immigrants from Latin America until 1965.” I’m going to have to call B.S. on that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
    2) We never had a land border with a third world nation like Mexico until after the Mexican war, and mass immigration of Mexicans into the southwest didn’t start untill the 1870s. So it’s a little misleading to say we never guarded our borders until the 1870s, it’s like saying that Britain doesn’t guard it’s borders, because it doesn’t have any.
    3) The early immigrants were from Britain and Ireland, thus, the founders did not see them as a cultural or politicla threat, unlike current immigrants, who are hostile to white Americans and our country and wish to make it socialist.
    4) Now we have to ask ourselves why we are the one of the last free-market nations in the world. Why are we one of the richst countries in the world. Why are we one of the last bastions of free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms? Is it something about our unique culture? And is that culture worth preserving? Most other nations in the world are socialist, should we just give these other nation’s our land, our government, our selves? Why is Mexico so corrupt? Why will Mexico transplanted to America look any different? These are questions open borders libertarians need to answer.

    1. GOD I FUCKING HATE FUCKING MEXICANS!!!!111!!!!1!1UNO!UNO!

      1. “!!!!111!!!!1!1UNO!UNO!”

        Shouldn’t that be:

        !!!111!!!!1!1once!oncety!?

      2. You probrably hate n*****s to. That’s why you oppose the welfare state.

        1. Don’t you mean the opposite? Because gather a people together into sub-standard housing projects and using perverse economic incentives to destroy their work ethic and family structure doesn’t sound like “love” to me.

          Jus’ sayin’

        2. The word you’re looking for is “niggers” you racist piece of shit.

          You can spell it out here. So everyone can see it.

          kthxbai

    2. Here is the only answer you need. I have the right to employ or house anyone I damn well please using my own resources, even if that person happens to be Mexican. So fuck you, you don’t own the whole country. There is no collective ownership of the entire USA. At the very least, anyone with a job waiting should be let in. Most come to work, not to collect welfare and make the US more socialist. That is mostly done by the labor organizers and activists.

      1. that’s a REASONABLE argument. what is not reasonable is the open border proponents, as above CONSTANTLY playing the race card and implying if not outright stating that supporting border controls = racism or that those who support same are racists.

        this is the SAME argument liberals could and do use against libertarians in opposing various welfare programs that disproportionately benefit/affect certain racial minorities

        it’s not ok when they do it, and it’s not ok when we do it

        but sad to say, ideologues are often the same. the same bogus tactics are used to discredit (try to) opponents vs. honest intellectual discussion

        1. I don’t think most people who support border controls are racist, and I myself am ok with very basic controls, but there have definitely been people on this board (let alone non-libertarian ones) that have made bigoted arguments in the threads of the last few weeks. “American” is Exhibit A

          1. I just want giant Ellis Islands made up – “Got immunizations? Got a name? No warrants out from other countries? Here is your card, I suggest avoiding California right now, and I hear that the oil and gas fields out West need workers, have a nice day. Next!”

            1. ^this, in El Paso^

            2. I totally agree with this

            3. I would totally support this

              Damn you Reason for making me rewrite this and make it longer just to get past your stupid spam filter. Damn squirrels!

              1. I, however, would totally discriminate against squirrels trying migrate in – THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

                1. My dog disagrees with you.

              2. I would totally support this

                Sounds like something anonobot would write.

                Anonobot lives, but pornbot is dead. Does that seem right to you?

            4. Hell, even if you got warrants, step over here to this other line and we’ll give you a chance to petition for asylum. (Why give corrupt governments a sure-fire mechanism to keep good people out of our country?)

          2. “bigoted arguments”
            We are all bigots here in the mind of the left. You’re a bigot for opposing the welfare state, as Dumphy explained. So you need to do a little better than simply saying the word. What arguement in specifically strikes you as bigoted?

            1. Gee, I don’t know, maybe the countless posts you’ve made about how Hispanics are all lazy, stupid, violent, socialists who hate Americans?

              1. Point to one post where I said that ALL Hispanics are lazy, stupid, violent socialists. I said that ON AVERAGE they ave lower IQ than white Americans and I think you were the one who got all pissed off about that. IT’S A FACT. Hispanics are also MORE LIKELY to vote Democrat. But Calidissident doesn’t understand the definition of words like ‘more likely’ and ‘on average.’

                1. I said that ON AVERAGE they ave lower IQ than white Americans and I think you were the one who got all pissed off about that.

                  On average, half the people are below average.

                  Hispanics are also MORE LIKELY to vote Democrat

                  So it’s not that their dirty Messican, it’s that they’re dirty Democrats.

                  1. As I have said many times, one of the difficult things about respecting rights and freedom is that you have to respect the rights of people who you disagree with too. The fact that more Mexicans might be socialist leaning than Americans (which is far from obvious at this point) does not negate their right to work for a willing employer or to live wherever they can legitimately rent or acquire property.

                  2. Voting democrat couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a bunch of racist fucks in the republican party calling hispanics lazy socialists could it?

                  3. Actually, most people would be average. It’s not half and half with each person having a unique IQ.

                    just sayin’

                2. If you were to simply state Hispanics have a lower IQ than whites, I wouldn’t accuse you of being bigoted. It’s the implications you make, and the arguments you use it in, that make me think you are bigoted

                  And Democrats are the only socialist party here? Things would be ok if only Hispanics voted for Team Red? hahaha

        2. Dunphy, you moron, American is an admitted racist. Go check out the immigration thread from the weekend. He’s Slappy from A3P, an explicitly racist organization.

          1. if that’s true, then fine. it doesn’t vitiate the point that FREQUENT implications are made here, including in this very thread, that opposing open borders = racism. that’s hardly arguable.

            it is true that (nearly) all white supremacist racists will oppose open borders.

            it does not follow that (even a moderate percentage) of those that oppose open borders are racists.

            it’s like abortion

            male chauvinists who want to oppress women are always going to be pro-life (or almost always)

            it doesn’t follow that being pro-life means you are a chauvinist

            i’m prochoice fwiw

            but i apologize if didn’t realize this american was a racist. the point still stands because it’s common and classic in this argument, even in this thread

          2. I don’t remember admiting to being racist. And I’m certanly not a “Slappy from A3P.” I am a libertarian who believes in limited government, I’m not an Anarchist.

            1. I am a libertarian who believes in limited government

              Limited to keeping out the dirty Messicans.

            2. As long as people hold the correct political view, they get rights.

              Some “libertarian” you are.

              “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”

              1. “As long as people hold the correct political view, they get rights.”
                Sorry for bursting your buble, but that’s how the world works. In everyone is a communist and they vote communist, they don’t get any rights, because their government is communist. It’s not that complicated.

                1. Sorry for bursting your buble, but that’s how the world works.

                  So here’s a grand idea: we’ll make every Mexican immigrant swear fealty to the Republican Party.

                  And then we’ll have the RED STATES institute border checkpoints along the BLUE STATES and make Americans who are peaceably travelling swear fealty to the Republican Party.

                  And no Democrat will ever abuse that power. Ever.

                2. “Sorry for bursting your buble”

                  What does a Canadian singer have to do with this discussion?

                3. If everyone is a communist, and they voluntarily form a commune, then that’s not a problem from a libertarian perspective.

                  1. Can we maybe use a word other than Communist? It’s pretty hard to detach that term from a political movement which killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century. Given that history, it’s hard to be anything but distrustful of one who subscribes to the views of Marx and Lenin.

                    1. For instance, “communitarian” or something. I would think that people who actual espouse the views you’re describing would appreciate this change of nomenclature; it’s similar to “libertarian” as a replacement for “liberal”.

              2. @Randian

                see here: http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07…..migration/

        3. While some anti-imigration folk are certainly motivated at least in part by racism, unless I can see it blatantly I try to assume that people are arguing in good faith and not harboring some secret racism.

        4. As soon as someone says that mexicans shouldn’t be let in because they are lazy and just want welfare, your argument flies out the window.

          1. What you really mean to say is “the left gives me permission to throw your arguement out the window.

            1. Now you have stopped making any sense at all you racist fuckwad. The left has nothing to do with calling an ethnic group lazy.

      2. “I have the right to employ or house anyone I damn well please using my own resources”
        I don’t think you get it. WHY DO YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT? In Mexico, you would not have many of the “rights” that you have in America. The reason you have these rights is because the American people let you have them. The Mexican people wouldn’t. In metopia, I don’t have to ask everybodies permission to have my liberty. But in THE REAL WORLD I do. So I want to live in a country of people who will respect my rights, and if that means paying a little more for getting my lawn mowed, so be it.

        1. Hey Slappy, you racist piece of shit, for someone who claims to know so much about American history, you appearantly know jack shit about the the fact that the US was founded on the idea that our rights don’t come from the government or the people.

          1. I never said the founders thought our rights came from the government or the people. What I said was that IN THE REAL WORLD THEY DO. The founders understood this, that is why they tried so hard to establish a system whereby the people would not violate each others rights. That’s the basis of seperation of powers. Your a lying piece of shit, MWG.

            1. “I never said the founders thought our rights came from the government or the people.”

              I never said you did. What you did say was, “The reason you have these rights is because the American people let you have them.”

              This is shear bullshit… unsurprising coming from you of course.

              1. Fuck you, MWG. This is a real American, dammit. And he has taken time out of his busy schedule of crying and pleasuring his asshole with a stale burrito to set you glibertarians straight. You listen, boy!

                1. SugarFree, how dare you imply that a Real American would pleasure himself with a food made by those dirty Mexicans!

                  1. Calidissident? California? That makes you Messican by association!

                    1. God damn it you caught me! I can’t pretend to be a Real American any more. Damn you SugarFree!

              2. “The reason you have these rights is because the American people let you have them.”
                How is that ‘shear bullshit?’ You (I’m assuming you’re an American) live in one of the most capitalistic nations in the world. Why is America capitalist when the rest of the world throughout most of history was not? Answer the question.

                1. Largely because of our historic disdain for collective rights over rights of the individual you fucking collectivist.

                  Oh, and the fact that the US is some sort of capitalst paradise has absolutely shit to do with our white culture. If you want to see truly capitalist cultures, look to places like Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE, Mauritius, Qatar, etc… All of whom rank ahead of us in terms of economic freedom and all of whom have large NON white immigrant populations.

                  http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012-ch1.pdf

                  1. “Largely because of our historic disdain for collective rights over rights of the individual you fucking collectivist.”
                    By “our” did you mean that Americans have historically believed in something That makes you “slappy from A3P.” And if you think the UAE is a capitalist paradise, fuck you. And singapore is a dictatorship. And Hong Kong is Chinese, non-white, to be sure, but that is not the same as other non white places.

                    1. And America is a capitalist paradise? BTW, Chile ranks ahead of the US in economic freedom rankings and … OH MY GOD THEY’RE LATINOS!

                    2. Last time I ckacked they were heavily north-european white and are more libertarian then us because our government installed a dictator who imprisioned enemies of the free market.

                    3. “Last time I ckacked they were heavily north-european white”

                      You keep repeating this and it’s not true. Germans are the biggest Northern European ethnic group in Chile, at only 3.5% of the population. Spanish is by far the biggest European ethnic group, like most other Latin American countries. Italian is the second. Indigenous descent is the second most common ancestry (most people there are Mestizo). There is very little evidence of a racial link with economic freedom in Latin American. Argentina and Uruguay are whiter than Chile, and have way less economic freedom. Argentina is notorious for their economic populism. Peru is the second most indigenous country, and according to CATO, has the second highest economic freedom in the region (behind Chile), not far behind the US. Cuba became communist despite a large white population, and the ruling elite there is mostly white.

                      And Chile has been a democracy for 20 years. Isn’t your whole point about how Latinos voting in democracy will destroy freedom?

                    4. “And if you think the UAE is a capitalist paradise, fuck you. And singapore is a dictatorship. And Hong Kong is Chinese, non-white, to be sure, but that is not the same as other non white places.”

                      IOW you didn’t click on the link. In terms of economic freedom, all those places rank ahead of the US you moron.

                2. It’s shear bullshit because everyone has human rights regardless of where they live. Now our government defends those rights more than other places, but those rights cannot be taken away only violated.

                  And btw, the US is a distant 10th wrt economic freedom. Maybe try Canada. I hear it’s almost all white and checks in at number 6.

            2. “…that is why they tried so hard to establish a system whereby the people would not violate each others rights. ”

              Except for the right of free association, right?

        2. Christ is this fucker stoopid.

        3. Um, but you’re not respecting those rights – so you kind ruin your own argument?

          Also, are white European countries bastions of economic freedom? Maybe 100-150 years ago, but they’re increasingly moving away from that. So (and this is assuming the argument you make, that white Americans support some sort of free-market paradise, to be true) if white Europeans in American can support policies different from their home countries, why can’t Latin Americans?

          1. “Maybe 100-150 years ago, but they’re increasingly moving away from that. ”

            That’s what American would call biological evolution.

            1. And you must be a creationist. Go back to Alabama!

              1. Fail. Unless you think major biological human evolution takes place in less than two centuries

                1. It’s called sarcasm. Ever heard of it? I’m using a straw man against this guy just as he used one against me. After all creationism and support for capitalism are both “right-wing” ideologies.

                  1. Well it’s a shitty use of sarcasm, because you’re not countering his point. You’ve implied in many arguments that there are genetic factors, or characteristics caused by genes, that lead Hispanics to prefer certain ideologies. Given that whites (and non-whites as well, but we’ll focus on the original argument) have shown vast shifts in ideology in a short amount of time, it seems that your argument is kinda shoddy

          2. “white Europeans in American can support policies different from their home countries, why can’t Latin Americans?”
            several reasons:
            1) White Americans have a culture of freedom that took a long time to evolve in ths country. Historically, European immigrants assimilated into that culture. Hispanics can assimilate into that culture, some already do, however due to the vastness of hispanic immigration, multiculturalism, and traditional negative attitudes toward welath and power amoung Mexico’s lower classes, Mexcians are not assimilating into that culture.
            2) White Americans tend to be ON AVERAGE wealthier and more intelligent as measure by IQ tests than Hispanics Americans. Thus they are more likely to occupy positions that are conductive to supporting a free-market ideology. It’s pretty hard to support tax cuts for millionares if you pick vegtables for a living.
            3) The burden should not lie on me to rove that hispanics won’t change, but on you to prove that they will.

            1. The burden should not lie on me to rove that hispanics won’t change, but on you to prove that they will.

              Actually, you are the one arguing for State Intervention into peaceful movement and transactions, so the burden is in fact on you.

              1. “you are the one arguing for State Intervention into peaceful movement and transactions, so the burden is in fact on you”
                The arguement is whether the hispanics will in the future give up their ideology and adopt the ideology that white Americans have. Because we cannot predict the future, this is an unfalsafiable claim, and the burden lies on those who make unfalsafiable claims, not on those who deny them.

                1. Who fucking cares about collective ideology and culture you collectivist piece of donkey shit.

                  some fucking “libertarian” you are

                  1. I care about collectivist ideology when it is trying to take my rights away from me.

                    1. but its incredibly fucking stupid of you, with little evidence besides a perverted historical perspective, to make sweeping ethnic, racial, and national generalizations and proclamations.

                      you just reek of the stupidity that i could only suspect an A3P member to possess

                2. I don’t want Hispanics to adopt the ideology of white people. In case you haven’t noticed, white people aren’t exactly libertarians. I want people in both groups to change their ideology towards libertarianism.

            2. “White Americans have a culture of freedom that took a long time to evolve in ths country.”

              I guess the Arabs and Chinese must be evolving faster than us.

              http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012-ch1.pdf

              “Historically, European immigrants assimilated into that culture.”

              Bull-fucking-shit, at the time of largely European immigration, idiot Americans were making the same arguments about the Catholics, micks, and Irish regarding assimilation your making about the Hispanics.

              “2) White Americans tend to be ON AVERAGE wealthier and more intelligent as measure by IQ tests than Hispanics Americans. Thus they are more likely to occupy positions that are conductive to supporting a free-market ideology.”

              What positions are those? Hitler was also seen as someone who was highly intelligent. Einstein was a fucking socialist.

              “3) The burden should not lie on me to rove that hispanics won’t change, but on you to prove that they will.”

              No, you’re the one arguing for limits to freedom so the burden of proof is on you and so far you arguments seem to be largely race based.

            3. Randian and MWG covered your post pretty well, but I would like to respond to your argument in 2

              2) “White Americans tend to be ON AVERAGE wealthier and more intelligent as measure by IQ tests than Hispanics Americans. Thus they are more likely to occupy positions that are conductive to supporting a free-market ideology. It’s pretty hard to support tax cuts for millionares if you pick vegtables for a living.”

              You do realize that Asians, who have higher IQs than whites, make more money on average, and use welfare at a lower rate, voted for Obama in a greater percentage than Latinos did? And that Jews, who also have all these characteristics, voted for Obama just a couple points less than Hispanics did?

              1. Plus, IQ is largely dependent upon nutrition and the poor tend to have poor nutrition.

                1. That’s why they need welfare. Want to rethink that?

                  1. No not at all. It shows that your racist argument is racist. You attribute IQ to race when it is more properly attributed to economic status. Immigrants have always been predominately poor. That’s why they feel the need to leave their home country in order to make a better life for themselves. However, once their economic situation improves which happens almost immediately upon immigrating their offspring start to make IQ gains.

                    Now if you are arguing that we shouldn’t let in the poor immigrants because they will claim welfare, you have a burden to prove that they disproportionately claim welfare upon entry, that they remain on welfare, and that the welfare paid out is not balanced by the increased economic activity generated by their presence. Since most research says it’s a wash, good luck with that.

              2. I believe I already made this point to you in a prior post, but I will make it again. All red ducks being flightless does not mean blue ducks cannot also be flightless. Why Jews and Asians vote the way they do is another matter. But my point that it’s hard for a poor, less inteligent on average population to support policies that lead that their group to being on the bottom of society.

                1. But you haven’t proved that Hispanics vote Democrat mostly because they’re poor, stupid and love socialism. Given that literally every demographic minority votes Democrat, even those that are more intelligent and successful than whites, it seems that there are probably other factors at play

                  1. “Given that literally every demographic minority votes Democrat,”
                    Acutally that is not true, see Mormons and Cubans. There are other factors at play, but is it really that hard to imagine for one second that a people who live all their lives as a poor, unsuccessfull people would be attracted to an ideolog that promises to take things away from their more intelligent and successfull nieghboors? Asians and Jews vote the way they do because they hate gentile white America. I know about the latter because i have lived amoung them. And how does “they do it because their minorities” support your “open the floodgates” arguement?

                    1. I was speaking about broad categories. In any case, Mormons are still (overwhelmingly white) Christians, so I wasn’t referring to them. No Christian sect is a majority, so in that sense everyone’s a minority. Cubans and Vietnamese do vote Republican, but that’s pretty much it. And it also makes my point that immigrants aren’t incapable of becoming culturally or politically different from their home countries. Both of those countries are communist, yet both those groups are staunchly anti-communist.

                      As for the rest of your post, you really have it all figured out? It’s miraculous how you know the political motivations of tens of millions of people based simply on their race or ethnicity. And there’s always a convenient backup excuse if your argument fails to adequately account for different groups. Are you under the impression that all Hispanics are poor, uneducated fruit pickers that are incapable of even becoming middle class citizens? They are disproportionately immigrants from poor countries. And many other groups had struggles in similar circumstances in the USA. Doesn’t mean there aren’t many that are perfectly capable of functioning in jobs beyond farm work or maid service, or that for those who do do such work, that their children can’t do better. I think free market capitalism is for everybody, regardless of race or class, you apparently do not.

                    2. And your point about Asians and Jews is simply absurd. How can you make ridiculous statements like “Asians and Jews hate gentile white America” and not expect to be called a racist?

                      As for your last sentence, I’m not saying they do it simply because they are minorities. That doesn’t explain why minorities tend to vote that way. The Republican Party does an excellent job of alienating minorities. Heck, that includes libertarians! Cause you do realize the GOP is not some libertarian freedom-loving party, right? You’re basing your entire argument on not letting immigrants in cause they’ll vote Democrat, but completely fail to even make a case for why it would be ok if they only voted Republican.

        4. I have those rights because I am a human being. Fuck off.

            1. And it’s supposed to be in latin.

              1. Servus dominus efutue!!!

                1. Crap, my knuckles ache just thinking about the error. I mean nominative? Really?

                  How bout a little vocative?

                  Serve domine efutue.

        5. The reason you have these rights is because the American people let you have them.

          Hey Fuckhead, I thought you said you were a libertarian? You don’t know what the word means.

          1. There is a better way to say this.

            The reason you have these rights is because the the Constitution acknowledges the fact that all people have these rights and is set up in a way that tries to protect our ability to use those rights.

            This is not necessarily true of other countries.

            That’s better than American said it.

      3. I have the right to employ or house anyone I damn well please using my own resources, even if that person happens to be Mexican.

        Assuming that to be the case, you certainly do not have the right to force everyone along the way from Mexico to your place of work to allow that person to pass.

        If the city government sets the speed limit on the street leading up to my house to 15mph, I can’t claim they’re violating my right to get pizza delivered quickly.

        1. Assuming that to be the case, you certainly do not have the right to force everyone along the way from Mexico to your place of work to allow that person to pass.

          Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything. Peaceful people should be allowed to freely travel. The only force is in shanghaiing them and saying “Papers, Bitch!”

        2. Seriously, Tulpa, saying that failing to interfere with peaceful travel = force is Tony-level doublespeak.

          You may as well say that failing to force Peter to pay for Paul’s medical care means that Peter and Society are killing Paul.

          1. Paneles de la muerte!

        3. Yeah, and maybe if all roads were private and all owners of the roads didn’t want Mexicans (please excuse my laziness in using “Mexican” to refer to all immigrants from points south) to pass through you might have a point. But people are generally allowed to travel freely in the US.

    3. 3) The early immigrants were from Britain and Ireland, thus, the founders did not see them as a cultural or politicla threat, unlike current immigrants, who are hostile to white Americans and our country and wish to make it socialist.

      And Germanic states. And Dutch. And how about all those Frenchies we took on in the Lousiana Purchase. Also, the Irish weren’t very welcome unless there was a channel to dig somewhere where valuable slaves might be lost to yellow fever or there was a war to fight. But other than that, you’re totally correct

      1. The funny thing is there totally were people who freaked out about German, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Polish, etc immigration at various times in US history. And they made pretty much the exact same arguments we see today

        1. Yes, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter talking about the danger of allowing ruddy-complexioned Germans into the U.S.

          Change a few of the place names and skin color descriptions and you’d have a modern rant against central americans.

          1. Same with the arguments against the Chinese in the 1880s.

        1. That goes without saying. We’re talking *human* immigrants here, not those bloody animals.

    4. 3) The early immigrants were from Britain and Ireland, thus, the founders did not see them as a cultural or politicla threat, unlike current immigrants, who are hostile to white Americans and our country and wish to make it socialist.

      Many immigrants are entrepreneurial, whereas many nth-generation Americans seem to think that government was instituted to give them free ponies. Near where I live, “real” Americans whine about businesses started by immigrants, while missing the point that it was immigrants who started them.

      1. The keyword here is “many.” There are “many” people living in Wyoming, nearly 600,000. That doesn’t change the fact that immigrants are more likely than the native born to vote Democrat.

        1. What fucking difference does it make how they vote? Don’t you get it you fucking moron? Rights are for everyone, not just the people YOU agree with.

          I’m a libertarian and I believe people grant rights to other people and I’m against granting rights to those who don’t vote the way I want em to.

          /American (Fuckhead)

          1. See here:
            http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07…..migration/
            Want to change your name now?

            1. If some guy on the Internet says it it must be true!

              And you still haven’t made a case for why immigrants voting Democrat is such an awful thing. Now I don’t disagree with the notion that voting for Democrats is a bad thing. But your argument rests on the assumption that Republicans are significantly better

    5. The early immigrants were from Britain and Ireland, thus, the founders did not see them as a cultural or politicla [sic] threat

      For someone named “American” you don’t know much about American history.

      America’s early immigrants weren’t just British or English. From the very start, you also had French, Dutch, Scandanvians, and Germans.

      Ben Franklin had a dim view of said German immigrants.

      The English-only nativists who attacked the Germans used arguments similar to those heard nowadays against newer immigrants. Benjamin Franklin considered the Pennsylvania Germans to be a “swarthy” racial group distinct from the English majority in the colony. In 1751 he complained, “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?” (The papers of Benjamin Franklin. Ed. Leonard W. Labaree. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1959. vol 4:234)

      As German is the largest ancestry group amongst White Americans, there’s a good chance you have Germanic blood, Mr. or Ms. American. I take it you will deport yourself soon?

      1. Damn you Mr Mulatto!!!!!!

        You even got the quote in!

      2. Gott damned bucket heads – tell ’em to pack up their pickelhauben and get their sauerkraut munching selves outta here!

      3. As German is the largest ancestry group amongst White Americans

        Link? I’m aware of the census. But I’m skeptical of self-reported ethnicity, especially when “American” is an option.

        1. Here. Census data is all I got, unfortunately.

          1. I’m pretty sure “Americans” are more Irish than “Germans” are German.

            1. Why are you so skeptical? It’s not like Germany isn’t a big place with a fair amount of people. It’s also worth remembering that Germanic states have always interacted with America since it’s birth. Many of those Hessian mercs decided to stay in America and raise families after the Revolutionary War, as just one example.

              1. No kidding – have you been to Hesse? I’d want out too!

                1. No kidding – have you been to Hesse? I’d want out too!

                  “Americans” and “Germans” refers to self-reported ethnicity on the US Census.

              2. I’m skeptical for the reasons Calidissent makes below.

        2. It is true that English ancestry is majorly under-reported on the Census. In 1980, they numbered 49.6 million. Now, only about 26 million. Obviously, they haven’t really gotten smaller. But as white people mix, and with the “American” option, a lot of people don’t list English as one of their ancestries, even though it is. However, this has also happened with German Americans in recent years. The 1990 Census gave a figure of 58 million German Americans, and the 2010 gave a number of about 50.8 million. So the numbers are probably pretty similar. If you wanted to get really technical, most blacks are partially of English descent from mixing during the slave times, which would tip the numbers toward the English. Also, if you wanted to make a broader category of British American, including Scottish, Scots-Irish, and Welsh, that would probably definitely be bigger than German American (according to the Census, there are about 40.2 million British Americans, although again, that number is low because all those ancestries, not just English, are under-reported).

          In any case, Germans have become one of the two largest European ethnic groups, and in most places outside the South and the Northeast, probably the largest

          1. I was aware of the general census trends, but thanks a lot for posting the numbers.

          2. Interessant, Cali. I always wondered why the English ancestry numbers are so low.

            1. nicole, I’m reacting to your forum name change the same way my daughter reacts when I don’t shave. I’m nervous and don’t like change.

              *The White Tigress Tradition link I SF’d before.

              1. Well who’s a complainy Janey now? I thought that video was awesome btw when you posted a few weeks back.

                1. I am a missionary for the One True Religion that is the White Tigress Tradition. The Good News will be expressed at every given opportunity. Jayia is the one true Goddess and I am her Prophet.

                  1. She is pretty awesome. She’s so normal. I love it.

            2. I think it’s primarily because a) A lot of white people in the South particularly, only identify as “American” which is an option on the Census. Many of them might not actually know their ancestry since their ancestors came here long ago, but the white settlers of the South were mostly British and Scots-Irish. And b) a lot of white people might choose to identify only as one of their more exotic or unique ancestries rather than “plain, boring” English. I myself am Italian, Scottish, German, Dutch, and an eighth unknown European (one of my great-grandmas was adopted)

              1. What I really hate (standard anti-collectivist disclaimers apply) is when people say they are “British” and mean “English.” My BFF, bog love her, always says she is “British and Scottish” and I want to stab her in the face. She does not respect the rich tapestry that is our island story!

                1. Granted, I’m not a smart man, but my wife and I sat down at a computer a couple of months ago and tried to figure out the difference between all the names of that little island and all her conquests. We spent an hour and I still can’t tell you the difference.

                  England, Great Britain, United Kingdom…

                  English, Welsh, Scott, Irish…

                  And Zod knows how Canada, Australia, New Zealand… fit into this mess… something, something about a queen?

                  And I’m half English(?).

                2. I agree Nicole. One time in school, I mentioned that I was British because I was Scottish (I forget how it came up) and everyone thought I was stupid because they thought it was two different things and that English = British. They didn’t get it even after I explained it

                  1. One time in school, I mentioned that I was British because I was Scottish

                    Och! the wee bairn cannae even remember Braveheart! William Wallace has a sad.

                3. She does not respect the rich tapestry that is our island story!

                  “A History of the British Isles in 2 words”= Viking Rape

              2. I myself am Italian, Scottish, German, Dutch, and an eighth unknown European

                So you’re an obnoxious, tasteless, easily offended, humorless drunken person who no one can understand, is a surprisingly good engineer, and has a fondness for eel and mayonnaise on fries. Oh, and people say you look sort of Slovenian.

                I bet eventually your German will make a pact with your Italian and invade your Netherlands. Then the Scot will attack the Italian who will immediately surrender, and the Scot and German will get tied up in a long bloody fight. Fortunately an American psychoanalyst will sort you out eventually.

                1. Damn it how do you know all that! Except I said I was Italian, not French, so the surrender wouldn’t be immediate

                  1. Touche! (or rather, “io capitolazio!”)

                    They wait until actual bullets are fired. Its a masculinity thing.

                    Best description of the Italian mentality from “old man in an whorehouse” in Catch-22=

                    Don’t you have any principles?
                    Of course not!
                    No morality?
                    I’m a very moral man, and Italy is a very moral country. That’s why we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated.
                    You talk like a madman.
                    But I live like a sane one. I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top. Now that he has been deposed, I am anti-fascist. When the Germans were here, I was fanatically pro-German. Now I’m fanatically pro-American. You’ll find no more loyal partisan in all of Italy than myself.
                    You’re a shameful opportunist! What you don’t understand is that it’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
                    You have it backwards. It’s better to live on your feet than to die on your knees. I know.
                    How do you know?
                    Because I am 107-years-old. How old are you?
                    I’ll be 20 in January.
                    If you live.

          3. Thank God they don’t bother counting the Irish.

        3. From what I recall, places like the Palatinate, Bavaria and Wurtemburg (you know, those swarthy, Swabian types) sent lots of folks.

    6. Ladies and gentlemen of the commentariat, it took me long enough, but I’ve finally figured it out. American is none other than our resident white supremacist, Slap the Enlightened from oh so long ago.

      Think about it: light racism mixed with fascism and a hint of Marxism.

      Hey Slappy! How the hell you doin’ you racist piece of shit? How are things over at A3P? Why no link this time?

      1. I think you’re right. Don’t forget that this is also Dick Hoste, then.

        1. I guess I wasn’t around in the Dick Hoste days. I suprised no one noticed before me.

      2. Darn it! I thought Slappy had self-deported since he didn’t meet the criteria he laid out for not being a burden on American society!

        I haz a sad face.

        1. “Heroic Mulatto”
          nuff said

      3. No, I’m not “slappy from A3P.” Just because I disagree with you people doesn’t mean I am a racist socialist anti-semite. You sound a lot like A3P yourself. You are always whining about welfare leeches, which we all know is just a dog whistle for the enword. And you oppose imperialism which we all know means you hate the Jews. Am I right?

        1. . You are always whining about welfare leeches, which we all know is just a dog whistle for the enword. And you oppose imperialism which we all know means you hate the Jews. Am I right?

          waaay off the mark dude. we’re all homosexual drug users who want to be able to concealed-carry a bazooka and overrun the nation’s “culture” with a horde of canadian-mexican anarchists. the only race we hate are the Irish, of course

        2. Am I right?

          No, Fuckhead, you haven’t been right once since you stared posting here.

        3. Wow.

          For someone who doesn’t belong to A3P, you seem to describe their ideological foundation quite accurate.

          But you’re not a member.

          1. Most white nationalist groups oppose welfare leeches and imperialism. I thought this was common knowledge.

            1. As long as the welfare leeches are white they don’t really care much. They don’t call it the National Socialist party for nothing?

    7. Fuck you you racist, know nothing piece of shit. If this were the 1850s, you’d be bitching about the papist micks, 1880s the goddamn dagos, and in the 1900s you’d be talking about the dangers of anarchist eastern european jews.

      Fuck you in the ass with a razor encrusted dildo and no lube.

      Actually, just keep spouting your shit. Because do you know what the delicious irony of you is? It is precisely because people associate anyone calling for any form of border security with people like you that it never gets enacted. That can be your pre-fucking enema.

      1. Alright golden boy, let’s calm down hear. Wouldn’t want people to start think that “Fuck you in the ass with a razor encrusted dildo and no lube” is what libertarianism is about. They do? Wonder why?

    8. America compared to most other advanced nation sucks ass on pretty much every metric except size of military and number of fucking morons with Internet access.

      1. number of fucking morons with Internet access.

        Note the Wild Tony make a comment, exhibiting a stunning lack of self-awareness.

        1. And in fact, the US is far from having the highest internet penetration as a % of population. Though I guess I’m not sure about % of morons…

      2. T o n y| 11.20.12 @ 3:05PM |#
        “…fucking morons with Internet access…”

        Shithead is bragging.

  10. headline in morning links: Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have introduced a bill that would alter the Controlled Substances Act in order to force the federal government to respect state-level legalization of Marijuana.

    i HATE to say “i told you so”.

    no, actually i don’t. the war on MJ is over. the feds KNOW it. see: above and see: the future

    1. the war on MJ is over. the feds KNOW it.

      Your unbridled optimism is quite touching.

      1. it’s also going to be proven correct by the course of history, yo! 🙂

        seriously. its over. the feds are NOT going to go against the will of the majority in these states and more states to come. this is markedly different from emdical mj on a # of fronts. one key difference: medical MJ substantially attacked the authoritah of big pharma etc which is intricately tied to the govt incentive programs etc.

        peoplel also realized, to a large extent, medical MJ was a joke, a stealth path for legalizing marijuana WIHTOUT legalizing it. the recreational mj law has no such stealth agenda. it is what it is.

        i was training last night (just starting weight training again post surgery) and both of the cops at my training center were strongly supportive of the recreational mj law.

        the writing is on the wall. war on MJ is OVER. in 10 to 20 yrs, many many more states will legalize. probably a couple dozen within 10 yrs imnsho

        1. I for one hope you are correct.

        2. it’s also going to be proven correct by the course of history, yo!

          Sure, sure. I’ll believe it when I see it.

          the feds are NOT going to go against the will of the majority in these states and more states to come.

          Uh huh. I’m sure there’s plenty of historical data to back up a claim like that.

          i was training last night (just starting weight training again post surgery) and both of the cops at my training center were strongly supportive of the recreational mj law.

          It will be three power-lifting cops vs the federal government. I can’t wait to see it.

          the writing is on the wall. war on MJ is OVER.

          You keep saying that to yourself but remember this: saying it repeatedly doesn’t make it true.

          1. If you tap your jackboots together three times and repeat “there’s no war on MJ” You will end up in a black and white film in Kansas.

        3. I’m optimistic. I don’t know why so many people are so gloomy on this.

    2. Don’t you listen, faggot? Die in a fucking fire.

    3. I’m actually inclined toward optimism as well, although part of me hopes Obama try’s to push back against WA state. Despite being a liberal state, there is a mean independent streak that runs through the population. I’d love for Obama to see their collective middle finger and be forced to back down.

      1. there is a mean independent streak that runs through the population

        There usually is, right up until election time.

        1. By independent I mean in the ‘libertine’ sense. People in WA generally don’t like being told what to do when it comes to sex and drugs and social issues in general… of course I’m also not arguing that WA is libertarian paradise, I do think in this instance, however, there is room for optimism.

  11. OT for some pre-holiday amusement:
    SF city gov’t is set to decide whether it will allow you to live in a small apartment
    http://blog.sfgate.com/onthebl…..ly-living/
    Yes, this is the same city which has a ‘housing crisis’. As if rent control weren’t sufficient, the gov’t is now set to double-down on making it worse.

    1. But opponents … point out that, at a higher price per square foot than larger apartments, they are not truly affordable housing.

      The foolishness, it burns.

      1. More stupid from the comments:

        I’m sorry, but just exactly HOW does $1200 to $1400 per month for one of these unites constitute “lower rent units”?!?!?!

        Sounds more like every other American corporate venture. Just how little can you give for the maximum price tag allowable?

        I can’t believe for a minute anyone in San Francisco would actually accept something like this taking place! All the promises being made, you know have to be lies. It won’t free up homes for families, it’ll actually free up homes for the wealthy to have more space than the rest of us. And you can be sure, future housing will all start to move towards the micro-mini size, and we’ll never have space again.

        It’s San Francisco, NOT Tokyo! Don’t buy it!

        I want the fun, hip lifestyle of living in what I consider a “cool” city. But I shouldn’t have to pay for it!

        1. The winning comment came from an unexpected source:

          Left_of_Middle 11:10 AM on November 20, 2012

          It’s very bearable compared to 40 degrees winter nights.

        2. From what I can gather $1200 for anything in San Francisco is a pretty good deal.

        3. Heresy alert!

          a1scribe 11:28 AM on November 20, 2012

          I’m a little confused as to why a government planning commission is involved with this. Shouldn’t it be strictly a supply/demand thing? Does the planning commission have an inside line on what SF residents want/need?

          1. Not everyone in SF is bat-shit loony

            1. I beg to differ. All SugarFree’s different alter-egos are indeed bat-shit loony

    2. opponents worry that the units would not benefit neighborhoods where they would be built

      Uhhhh…so?

      1. Exactly the right response.

        I do think that there is obviously a density point that is not safe from a disease or natural-disaster perspective, but I am inclined to let the market sort that out.

  12. I find this thread lacking.

    It needs both VG and concern troll Sweater Vest to make it a real H&R immigration-thread smackdown.

    Without them, it’s like fries without ketchup (or tartar sauce).

    1. I like to think it’s the real Rick Santorum commenting. Because what the hell else does he have to do anyway?

      1. He’s likely in an airport restroom tapping his foot and widening his stance.

      2. There are miscarriages all over this great land that need to be cuddled.

        1. I know I should complain, but I like your style SF.

          1. I do what I can with what I have. That’s all we can expect from each other in this cold, broken-down reality.

            1. Typical sentiment from a genetically defective person.

      3. Sometimes he says things that make me wonder. But I also recall (though I may be mistaken) that the poster “Rick Santorum” made a comment implying or stating that he was Protestant, not Catholic

    2. Why do you hate Malt Vinegar?

        1. On fries? That’s a new one.

    3. Fries with ketchup? Are you a heathen or something? Fries should only be with, nay demand, to be with mayonnaise* ;-}

      *tartar sauce somewhat accepted

      1. That’s just wrong.

  13. Hispanics have voted 2:1 for Democrats in all recent national elections.

    Support open borders by all means, but don’t get bitchy when it doesn’t turn out like you thought it would.

    1. Ever think about trying to appeal to Hispanic immigrants?

      If you’re part of a political faction that is nearly all white and all male, that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with everyone else.

      1. Republicans are, in word if not in deed, for small government and personal responsibility. Libertarians are that and more.

        If that doesn’t appeal to Hispanics, then suggesting they prefer big government and socialist policies isn’t an absurd idea.

        1. I have news for you, almost everyone prefers big government and socialist policies.

          Old white people on Medicare have just been confused on the issue by Republican buzzwords.

          5% of the country identify as libertarian. I wonder how many among them wouldn’t do exactly what every other person would do in a crisis whose only solution was big government. I suspect very few of them live their lives much different at all from the most hardcore liberal Democrat.

          1. I don’t disagree with you. All I said was that when open borders leads to millions of new big-government voters, libertarians shouldn’t get all sniffy about it.

            1. Why do you assume they are big government types? They left massively invasive governments for one that is less so. Time and time again polls show that the wedge issue that keeps them from going republican is immigration policy.

              1. I answered your question already, see above.

                The only poll I’ve seen is one that puts immigration policy third below healthcare and unemployment. Also, McCain had a favorable immigration policy and got 40% of the Hispanic vote.

                1. Yeah immigration is listed third but the breakdown among all us hispanics is:
                  Healthcare 20%
                  Unemployment 20%
                  Immigration 20%

                  Now healthcare I can see going full tilt dem as a policy position, but that could go the other way if a rep reform policy made healthcare more affordable. Unemployment, that could be a toss up as it doesn’t specify which economic positions would be supported. Immigration is pretty cut and dry when you have the dems calling for amnesty and the other calling for the national guard on the border. Couple that with all the offensive rhetoric from right wing talk radio, and it is no surprise that hispanics don’t want to hang out with those on the right. But even more important is the personal racism that is encountered. When a hispanic hears whites bitching about lazy mexicans just trying to get welfare, they can rightly assume that that sentiment is coming from someone on the right. That will not endear them to the right.

                  When confronted by overt racism, as we have seen in AZ, the tie for first changes and immigration becomes the number one priority. It’s like they are rational and understand that the first 2 are dependent upon the cultural significance of the third.

                  1. I would think immigrants in this country would be more supportive of closing the border. Who wants more competition for already scarce employment opportunities?

                    You spin a decent tale, but I doubt you could find more than a handful of Hispanics who have ever listened to right wing talk radio.

                    1. There is a difference between listening to right wing talk radio and hearing right wing talk radio on the foreman’s radio. But then here in L.A., all the laborers seem to just listen to ranchero music on there phones.

              2. No, they don’t.
                see http://www.vdare.com/articles/…..ris-kobach

                1. Or you could just ask them. Oh wait that has already been done.

                  ” Some 55 percent of respondents in a Latino Decisions poll of Hispanic voters in Arizona released Tuesday said immigration was the most important issue that the President and Congress should address. The second-highest response was the economy, at 44 percent. (Respondents were permitted to select two answers.)”

              3. Latinos are majority pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, and generally agree with the Democratic policy platform. It will take more than just immigration.

                1. The hispanics I’m surrounded by are most certainly not pro-choice or pro-gay. Cite please.

                  1. No, you don’t understaand SKR. Tony pulled that ‘fact’ out of his ass.

          2. T o n y| 11.20.12 @ 3:36PM |#
            “I have news for you, almost everyone prefers big government and socialist policies.”

            No doubt, shithead. The problem comes when all that free shit requires payment.
            See, oh, Greece, shithead.

            1. That’s what taxes are for.

              1. Tony, you fucking moron, no amount of tax increases are going to cover the current costs. You could fucking cut military spending to zero and it would only halve the deficit.

                Math is fucking hard, I know.

        2. Or it could be all the racist, true american, let’s shoot em as they try to cross the border bullshit that comes out of the mouths of republicans.

          1. I always get a laugh when libertarians shout “RACIST!” when it suits them.

            1. That’s what you are.

              The arguments all boil down to “those people shouldn’t be allowed to move about freely, but I should”

              That’s racism, whether you like it or not.

              1. I haven’t said any such thing. I don’t think anybody else has said as much either. I think your zeal has gotten the best of you.

                In any event, I’m not free to illegally emigrate to any country I wish. So you’re 0 for 2.

                But you can call me a racist again if that makes you feel better.

              2. What does that have to do with race? It’s about citizenship, about having a nation, about preserving the liberties of the citizens of that nation.

                1. Oh so as long as they don’t become voting citizens you don’t care who or how many people come here to work?

            2. Not shouting racist, just pointing out that when there are a bunch of racists in a particular group, it’s not much of a surprise that the groups that they are bigoted against don’t want to associate with them regardless of all the other commonalities the groups may have.

              1. Not shouting racist, just pointing out that when there are a bunch of racists in a particular group, it’s not much of a surprise that the groups that they are bigoted against don’t want to associate with them regardless of all the other commonalities the groups may have.

                Republicans fall all over themselves celebrating minorities that agree with them. Witness the hosannas shouted at dullard Marco Rubio.

                I don’t think there are as many commonalities as you hope there are.

                1. That’s just official “i have friends that are brown” posturing by the party. It’s as transparent as glass. The hispanic immigrants i’m surrounded by are anti-gay, pro-life, pro traditional family values, devoutly religous, and hard working. Sounds like a lot of common ground to me.

    2. And everything would be great if they voted for those defends of liberty known as the Republicans?

      Also, Hispanics didn’t even vote 1.5:1 for Democrats in 2004, so that’s not true

  14. “And I’m proud to be AMERICAN
    where at least some people are free.
    And I live in a gated compound
    where the Messicans can’t get to me.

    And I’ll proudly stand up next to you
    and defend her still today.
    Cause there ain’t no doubt I’m a piece of shit
    racist motherfucking asshole who hates fucking Messicans more than I love life and I want those fuckers on their side of the border and I have the right to shoot them if they come over here cause HURR DURR HURR something something IMA LIBERTARDINAAa!!111one.qew[fofok[qejwff..”

    /American

    1. That would be funnier if you lived in the barrio yourself.

      Which you don’t.

    2. “And I’m proud to be ALMANIAN
      where they ain’t no democracy
      And I’m safe in my gated niegnborrhood
      while the poor gotta deal with crime

      And I wanna share my land, with others
      cause then the liberals would like me
      cause they aint no doubt i hate this land
      and im proud to turn it into mexico

      1. That would be funnier if you at least tried to rhyme.

        Which you didn’t.

  15. The more I hear from libertarians, the more convinced I become that god put them on earth for use as punching bags by the rest of us. Whenever you’re angry or frustrated, reach out, initiate force, and beat the living shit out of the nearest libertarian. It’ll not only relieve stress, you’ll be performing a genuine service to your community.

    1. Cool story Mary

    2. Your name:

      Is that a combination of Bird Shit and Dog Shit?

    3. Warning: we’re packing.

  16. And that is exactly why California is part of the US, and not Mexico.

    California was originally settled by the Spanish, but wave after wave of Americans settled there after 1820 (especially after the Gold Rush), displacing the original Spanish settlers, the Californios (not to mention of course, the Indians) and eventually became part of the US.

    The original people in California had a pretty good life, until Americans can in and took it away from them.

    While on a certain level it’s poetic justice, at the same time, being an American, I really don’t want to see my culture and way of life be replaced by one I consider inferior. But if we aren’t willing to defend it anymore, well, maybe it’s not so superior. But there is a reason Mexico and Latin America is so corrupt and it’s not bad luck.

    1. “While on a certain level it’s poetic justice, at the same time, being an American, I really don’t want to see my culture and way of life be replaced by one I consider inferior. But if we aren’t willing to defend it anymore, well, maybe it’s not so superior. But there is a reason Mexico and Latin America is so corrupt and it’s not bad luck.”

      Who’s making you change your culture or way of life? Or are you suggesting you have a right to have your neighbors act a certain way? And why do you presume that Hispanics are going to replace “American” culture rather than assimilate into it, while at the same time adding to it (like every other immigrant group has done)? And in all seriousness, if you wanna complain about cultural decay, Hispanics are exactly the biggest reason why Justin Bieber, the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, Honey Boo Boo, the Jersey Shore gang, etc are famous

      1. You just convinced me to start hating hispanics. Why did you have to do that??

        I dont believe you anyway. Hispanics didn’t invent guidos and rednecks and mall-trash. WE DID.

        I have in the past proposed to LoneWacko (our former most vehement anti-immigrant troll) a deal where if we *exported* all the pre-existing ‘culture-destroyers’ in the USA and traded them for hard-working mexican families… it would be the bargain of the millennium… one which would reinvigorate our nation, even.

        I say this as a child of an immigrant. Immigrants arent the fucking problem in this country. Its the goddamn fat, stupid, lazy, ignorant, blood-sucking self-satisfied citizenry. Boot them all!

        1. There are many problems in this society. But I’d take a strip malled, consumerist, fattass culture any day to a socialist, crime-filled, corrupt latin american culture.

          1. We’re well on our way to a corrupt socialist state (if you wanna be generous and say we’re not already there) independent of Latin American immigration. Immigrants leave their home countries for a reason. They also tend to assimilate into the local culture over time. And contrary to what you may say, it is happening. No immigrant group assimilated overnight. But to suggest that Mexican Americans are the exact same culturally as Mexicans in Mexico is stupid. And crime rates are lower than they’ve been in decades, despite massive Latin American immigration. The crime rates of Hispanics are still well below blacks, and are skewed by the fact that Latinos are disproportionately young and male compared to other groups.

      2. “But there is a reason Mexico and Latin America is so corrupt and it’s not bad luck.”
        I made point to Calidissident many times. He has yet to respond to it.

        1. Do you think that perhaps there’s a reason people leave corrupt places? Cuba is communist, so we all know that means Cuban Americans love communism right? There are many reasons, historical and contemporary, why Latin American societies suffer from corruption. I fail to see how that justifies infringing on individual rights of people trying to leave those societies.

  17. I’m still the only person here who speaks “latin” when needs be.

    We Irish still have something to one-up you on when the going gets tough.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.