Immigration

National Review: Welfare-Sucking Hispanics Are Politically Hopeless Anyway

|

Maybe not so puede after all?

The cynical take on President Barack Obama suddenly making an issue out of comprehensive immigration reform is that, passage or no passage, the president and his party will find it politically advantageous to touch off a Republican-on-Republican fight, preferably one that will expose a particularly off-putting strain within the GOP.

That's not just my cynical take–Obama-sympathetic commentators such as Slate's John Dickerson have endorsed this as a basic governing strategy going forward. It may rankle those of us who have dared notice that president is constantly setting new records for family-wrecking deportations, but then, such symbolic opportunism wouldn't work nearly as well without an opposition willing to underperform even the soft bigotry of low liberal expectations.

Cue the National Review:

[I]f we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a fantasy.

Well, at least *this* one travels in First Class, or something

Apart from calling them hostile, anti-capitalist, welfare-sucking poors, NR's editorial really insults Americans of Spanish-speaking descent by denying them the basic agency of independent political action. This Romneyesque method of applying Marxist-style economic determinism to entire voting populations is not just wrong, it's self-defeating. Advantage, Obama.

The shame here for actual policy (and the millions of lives such policy impacts), is that National Review is otherwise right (and Obama wrong) that "piecemeal reform" is preferable to "comprehensive" legislative goliaths on such a difficult and politically charged issue. Any comprehensive package would likely speed us further toward national ID cards, even bigger deportation numbers, even more law enforcement on the border, and even more Washington-managed bureaucracies for human movement and employment. Few if any of these measures would be net positives for either freedom or basic rationality. And all would be bitterly contested.

But while those fights soak up the oxygen, there is a piecemeal reform politicians on both sides could and should get behind easily: Dramatically increase the number of legal visas. As Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick recently pointed out, "The best way to prevent illegal immigration is to make sure that we have a fair and workable system of legal immigration." Liberalize the law, and you create fewer lawbreakers.

There is zero reason to hold this good policy hostage to other immigration-related agruments, whether about "amnesty" or border security or workplace raids or drivers' licenses or English-only rules. Those who insist on using shaming exercises to advance pro-immigration policies could produce much more clarity by asking their opponents–and themselves–the same question: What are you doing, concretely and discretely, to significantly increase the number of visas for legal immigrants?

NEXT: Libertarians Hard to Come By in Japan

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. Many poor white separatists cannot afford to live in high rental racial enclaves and are being mugged and raped in their low cost crime filled neighborhoods. They should be rescued by a federally sponsored rent subsidy program that will allow them to afford the high costs of living in a white racial enclave.

    1. “…polnick| 1.31.13 @ 2:41PM |#

      Many poor white separatists cannot afford to live…”

      This is one of those comments that you can only assume

      they’re either
      a) very crazy
      b) very stupid
      or
      c) both
      or
      d) they are actually kidding, but their sense of humor is so fucking retarded that they con only come across as crazy and stupid

      As they say = “No matter how you slice it, its still balony”

  2. There’s a reason why they’re called the Stupid Party.

  3. The facts are what they are. Hispanics are not libertarian by and large. And they probably never will be or won’t be for a very long time. I don’t understand why that is so hard for Reason to comprehend.

    1. Neither are women when you assign the views of a majority to a collective.

      I took the NR editorial as opposing the consequentialist political argument for comprehensive reform.

      1. That is all they were saying. Reason does really seem to believe that if you would just open the boarders everyone who comes here would never vote for more benefits or support a big government. At some level they have to know that is not true. But they really seem to want to think it is true, and that is enough.

        1. I agree John, but you’re thinking too small. Non-Republicans having babies is a much greater threat to our small government. The only reasonable solution is to ban non-Republicans from having babies.

          1. Because a sovereign asserting control over its borders is just like government mandated infanticide.

            Immigration really does make Libertarians retarded. I mean full fucking retard.

            1. Pretty much. Are you saying the government doesn’t have the SOVEREIGN right to ban people from having children in order to protect our freedoms? John you just aren’t living in the REAL WORLD.

              1. I think that John is saying that the government has the sovereign right to round up whoever it wants, put them on cattle cars, ship them to concentration camps, and execute them.

                At least, I can see no obvious principle between his use of a nation’s sovereign control and that.

                1. At least, I can see no obvious principle between his use of a nation’s sovereign control and that.

                  That is because you are stupid Mike. Thanks for proving my point.

                  1. John, if you don’t respect my right to coerce you, you are disrespecting my SOVEREIGNTY. How dare you!

                  2. Okay, what’s the principle?

                    You established downthread that you think you have a right to join with some other people, draw a fence around some territory that you and your compatriots don’t entirely own, and then call yourself a sovereign.

                    What constrains what you can do inside your territory? Why can you prohibit entry of people you don’t like, but can’t execute people you don’t like?

                    Can you imprison them instead? Deport them? Tax them? Where is the line drawn and by what principle?

                    Thanks.

                    1. What constrains what you can do inside your territory? Why can you prohibit entry of people you don’t like, but can’t execute people you don’t like?

                      What constrains me is morality. The whole point is what is the right thing to do. You think open borders are. I am more skeptical. But regardless of what the answer to that dispute is, closing your borders is not the same as gassing people. To say that it is is to say all exercises of sovereign power are equally wrong. And that is just retarded.

                      Again, thanks for proving my point that Libertarians go full retard on the subject of immigration.

                    2. Some coercion is worse than others, but none are more wrong than others, just wrong.

                    3. I still haven’t seen what your principle is. I offered you several levels below gassing. Are any of them okay? Is deportation of those you don’t like immoral even through prohibition of entry of people you don’t like moral?

                      Is a person’s moral standing really based on where he was born?

                    4. A social contract must be allowed to decide who is or isn’t allowed to enter into the contract. If anyone can join, regardless of their willingness or ability to abide by the terms, then the contract will fall apart.

                      Basic game theory, really.

                    5. If anyone can join, regardless of their willingness or ability to abide by the terms, then the contract will fall apart.

                      Ah, so you subscribe to the sovereign right to ban new births mentioned upthread.

                    6. “SOCIAL CONTRACT!”

                      *the nativist begins to masturbate furiously*

                      “SOVEREIGNTY!”

                      *his eyes start to roll into the back of his head*

                      “CULTURAL HOMOGENEITY!”

                      *the nativist blows his load all over the Constitution*

        2. If you want to stop welfare, going bankrupt is the fastest way not building a creepy drone border that kills random innocent people.

          1. Yeah because importing huge numbers of welfare recipients in hopes they drive us to bankruptcy is one hell of a plan for the future.

            Countries like Zimbabwe are bankrupt. How is that working out?

            1. no dipshit you’re wrong, the goverment has never taken debt seriously unless they’re greece.

        3. “Reason does really seem to believe that if you would just open the boarders everyone who comes here would never vote for more benefits or support a big government.”

          But this is a losing point, John, and that’s all that matters. If the immigrants want socialism, and the socialists want socialism, then together they outnumber the people that don’t want socialism. So if you’re going to lose anyway, why make an argument that lets them paint you as a racist?

          The things is, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are FAR more libertarian than 1st generation. In other words, after a while, they see the light. But that trend won’t continue if you allow the socialists to equate liberty with racism.

          INOW, idealism is the proper strategy here, not pragmatism.

          1. Really? My experience is the opposite. First generation immigrants chose to come to the USA and like the place. Second generation kids have their minds poisoned by grievancemongers.

    2. Right, because there are no Hispanic business owners that might be appealed to with less regulations and lower taxes.

      Just because Hispanics will tend to break Democrat doesn’t mean the GOP has to be a caricature of a bigoted asshole that only furthers the split. Making sincere overtures will at least begin the reversal of that trend.

      1. Just because Hispanics will tend to break Democrat doesn’t mean the GOP has to be a caricature of a bigoted asshole that only furthers the split.

        The GOP has supported civil rights for blacks for over a hundred years. It is the Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow. Yet somehow the media and the Dems have convinced blacks to that the GOP are bigoted assholes against them against all evidence to the contrary.

        So you really think that supporting amnesty will keep them doing that with Hispanics? Most blacks agree with the GOP on things like gay marriage and school choice and even gun laws. Most blacks are very socially conservative. But none of that matters, they still vote D. Yet somehow Hispanics are going to vote R even though they agree with the Rs on issues even less than the blacks do.

        That is a fucking fantasy. If there was a chance in hell Latin voters were going to vote anything but overwhelmingly D, do you honestly think the Ds would be supporting this? The Dems know they own the culture and the schools. They know they can turn Latin voters into an aggrieved tribe that will mindlessly vote D and make up for the Demographic losses in the black vote. That is what this is about.

        1. How about just doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may? Why does everything have to be a political calculation. Fuck politics.

          1. Sure. But be honest and admit you are doing that instead of doing what Reason is doing and lying and pretending reality is something different.

            1. Using your own argument, I suspect blacks vote monolithically Democrat because they perceive that the Republicans are out to get them. *Actually being out to get Latinos* is even worse prima facie.

              When in a hole, first stop digging.

              1. But the GOP is not out to get them. They just don’t wan to open the border. And if the Hispanics don’t get amnesty, don’t they have themselves to blame at least partially? It is a bit rich of Hispanics to act shocked that the Republicans won’t help them when they have made it clear they would never vote for them. Gee, party that I will never support doesn’t look out for my interests. Who would have thought such a thing?

                And moreover, there are people who vote Republican who don’t want amnesty. Reason would have the GOP tell those people, who you know have actually supported the GOP, to go fuck themselves so they can look out for the interests of people who don’t vote GOP. Yeah, that sounds like a hell of a recipe for success.

                1. But the GOP is not out to get them.

                  Riiiight. All the contard and GOP talk of self-deportation, border walls, invasion, anchor-babies and other shit is just their way of saying ‘welcome to America’.

                  It is a bit rich of Hispanics to act shocked that the Republicans won’t help them when they have made it clear they would never vote for them.

                  Oh the irony.

                  1. All the contard and GOP talk of self-deportation, border walls, invasion, anchor-babies and other shit is just their way of saying ‘welcome to America’.

                    Admittedly it is not like the current Democratic President didn’t deport huge numbers or anything. But of course he did. And plenty of Dems support those things too. Yes Hispanics still vote Democratic. Maybe they are voting for other reasons.

                    Lets talk irony. How about the irony of Libertarians laughing at everyone else lumping together Hispanics but then turning around and being so sure every Hispanic is a single issue immigration voter.

                    1. 1) Yes, the media is unfair. All the more reason for the GOP to stop digging.

                      2) Latinos might not all be single issuers, but the xenophobia of the GOP is definitely turning them off. ‘Partial single opposition voting’ as I like to call it.

                    2. Yes Cytoxic, No dems are xenophobic. No tension between the black and Latin communities at all.

                      This is pointless. You people live in a fantasy world.

                    3. That’s not an issue for Dem electability.

                    4. You live in a fantasy world where the government isn’t xenophobic and abusive. Gtfo with that naive shit, big government socialist neocon.

                    5. You live in a fantasy world where the government isn’t xenophobic and abusive.

                      What does that even mean dipshit?

                    6. A goverment border with drones dumbfuck, that’s what it means. You think we should have one, yet the gov’t won’t act creepy.

                      Fuck you it is my business, i’ll hire whoever i want.

        2. Still no good reason to caricaturize Hispanics as lazy welfare whores.

          They don’t need to support giving minorities free shit, they do need to support treating everyone fairly under the law.

          But instead they’re retarded and will let Obama steal the glory on immigration reform while making themselves look like bad guys.

          1. They don’t need to support giving minorities free shit, they do need to support treating everyone fairly under the law.

            If they don’t support everything Obama wants, they are going to be tagged as racists anyway. Why do they owe their political careers to a bunch of people who will never vote for them anyway?

            And it is funny how this is all the GOP’s fault. If Hispanics want amnesty, maybe they ought to try reaching out to the GOP rather than making it clear that amnesty is a political death warrant for them?

            1. How would supporting immigration reform hurt them? They don’t have to support one giant bill, they got good political mileage out of opposing Obamacare on those grounds.

              But they should on principle support reforming the immigration system and giving hard-working people a fair shake at becoming citizens. It’s the right thing to do and it won’t hurt them. It’s not like their nativist base is going to defect to Team Obama.

              1. How would supporting immigration reform hurt them?

                Because there are a lot of people who, unlike Hispanics, actually vote for the GOP who don’t support it. Reason expects the GOP to tell its actually supporters to fuck off, so they can look out for the interests of people who won’t vote for them. That is David Brooks level concern trolling.

                1. Yes, the GOPs sole concern should evectoral supremacy. Not what is right or just or humane, as a matter of principle. Power is all.

                  1. Yes, the GOPs sole concern should evectoral supremacy.

                    Yes Hazel, I know. It is their job to lose so you can feel good about yourself. We got that a couple of posts ago.

            2. Um John: it’s the GOP’s job to reach out. They’re the party.

              1. Um John: it’s the GOP’s job to reach out. They’re the party.

                And the Hispanics are the interest group. Last I looked if you wanted to get something done, telling 48% of the population to go fuck themselves, I will never support you, isn’t exactly a good idea.

                Do we tell the NRA not to reach out to both parties? It is up to the Dems to reach out to them. Why should immigration groups be any different.

                1. You’re making shit up. Actually, you’re projecting. Hispanics never told 48% of the population or the GOP to GFT. They voted for Bush in large numbers.

                  Hispanics aren’t an organization but it’s telling that you treat them like they are.

                  1. They voted for Bush in large numbers.

                    He won 35% in 2000 and Romney won 27%. That is not that many votes.

                    1. That represents tons of votes.

                    2. John is a delusional if he thinks a larger border will be cheap or effective.

                    3. HK,

                      Every other country seems to have no problem having a border. Mexico is quite effective at closing its borders.

                    4. They are? Tons of migrants from Central America thought Mexico despite its draconian laws.

                    5. you’re really naive john, getting past a border is easy, using a tunnel or ladder is common.

                      plus why are we keeping them out again? your reasoning is weak.

                      only a drone border will work, and that’s creepy as shit left-wing neocon.

                    6. Obama only got 39% of the white vote last November. That’s down from Gore’s 42%. Should Democrats worry about their inability to appeal to white people?

                      Should they worry about telling 64% of the population to go fuck themselves?

                    7. Why would they worry? They’re winning elections.

                  1. Just a satirical response to the “oh no, Hispanics prefer Democrats” concern trolling.

          2. Still no good reason to caricaturize Hispanics as lazy welfare whores

            They didn’t. That’s just Welch’s spin.

        3. The GOP has supported civil rights for blacks for over a hundred years.

          According to your logic, the GOP shouldn’t have supported civil rights, because it only created more Democrat voters.

          Which party Hispanics tend to vote for is entirely immaterial to what their rights are or should be.

          We should support immigration reform becuase IT’s The Right Thing to Do. Not because it’s good or bad for the GOP.

          1. Headshot

          2. Hazel,

            This may come as a shock to you. But people disagree with you. Not everyone is a transnationalist. And shockingly, those people like to have a say in things to. And they tend to vote GOP. And sorry, but “please tell your actual supporters to go fuck themselves and ensure that their view (though widely held) is completely out of the political conversation” is probably not a smart thing for the GOP to do.

            All you are doing is question begging. “its the right thing”. Says you.

            1. Conservatives are shallow and stupid John. If the GOP goes with the Rubio immigration plan, the proles will follow. It’s in their nature.

              1. If the GOP folds on immigration, they will abadon the GOP and it will be worse than if they had passed gun control.

                Conservatives are shallow and stupid John.

                Says the person who thinks that Hispanics are going to support small government.

                The irony it BURNS.

                1. I never said they were going to support small government. Try to be more careful with your statements.

                  1. Clearly they don’t cyto because they don’t vote republican.

              2. “Conservatives are shallow and stupid John. If the GOP goes with the Rubio immigration plan, the proles will follow. It’s in their nature.”

                If you want to know why the GOP is losing elections, long no further than that.

                Your state position is that the GOP establishment can take the conservative voting block for granted. That it will always be there, regardless of the policies the party enacts. That it can be abused.

                George W. Bush did just that for 8 year, giving birth to the tea party, who were fed up with being used by the GOP establishment.

          3. We should support immigration reform becuase IT’s The Right Thing to Do. Not because it’s good or bad for the GOP.

            What immigration reform? The GOP one? the Democrat one? Or the libertarian one?

            1. I’m refering to this comment from you:

              The libertarian version of immigration reform should have eliminating labor certs as the number one priority. Yet neither side has proposed anything like that. The R’s want to hand out free visas to people with advanced degrees (who generally have no trouble getting a work sponsorship anyway), and increase the number of H1-Bs (which only go to people with college degrees anyway). And the D’s want to make all the illegals citizens as fast as possible, without changing anything else.

              1. Actually I revise that, the number one thing should be normalizing the status of young adults brought here illegally as children.
                Then labor certs.

                The plight of young adults who have grown up in the US since childhood and are denied the right to ever hold a job or work in a career of their choice should appall anyone who values liberty.

                1. So is that an endorsement of the Democratic position?

                  I’d be careful with the “right to work” stuff though since no one has a right to have job provided for them.

                  1. I’d be careful with the “right to work” stuff though since no one has a right to have job provided for them.

                    Right to work has nothing to do with a right to a job and everything to do with not having a third party dictate the terms of what should be a private contract between employer and employee.

                  2. He’s not saying they are entitled to a job. Just that as human beings they should be able to find one that would pay them legitimately, you know, since they were children and had no say in where their parents moved them.

                    1. Hazel is a she I thought?

                      I knew full well she was attacking the notion that people need certification of some sort in order to have a job. I was just pointing about that what she said was kinda fuzzy. With all the college kids out there demanding high paying jobs we should be careful to not phrase things in ways that can be interpreted that way.

                    2. What I’m attacking is that in order to get a work visa the employer has to prove that there is no American who could possibly do the job. To the Department of Fucking Labor.

                      Which pretty much means “Fuck you, you can’t work here” to the vast majority of prospective immigrants.

          4. “Which party Hispanics tend to vote for is entirely immaterial to what their rights are or should be.”

            While I’m with you regarding immigration, I hate this line of reasoning. Socialists, even socialists that aren’t members of the political elite, aren’t innocent. They sacrifice their moral claim to natural rights when they hire the world’s biggest hitman to steal for them.

            1. inalienable, adj., incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another.

          5. “We should support immigration reform becuase IT’s The Right Thing to Do. Not because it’s good or bad for the GOP.”

            No, the right thing to do would be to let the libertarian immigrants in, and keep the socialists out. And when I say “right thing”, I mean right according to the NAP.

            1. How is this any different than the lefty “I’m tolerant of everyone except those who aren’t tolerant like me” bullshit?

        4. The GOP has supported civil rights for blacks for over a hundred years. It is the Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow. Yet somehow the media and the Dems have convinced blacks to that the GOP are bigoted assholes against them against all evidence to the contrary.

          The GOP supported civil rights for blacks because it was the right thing to do, not because there were votes in it. If you only worry about interfering with liberty when your team is inconveniences, you’re not really a defender of liberty. Just a defender of your team.

        5. What is a fucking fantasy is everything swirling around your scrambled little brain.

          White Southerners are the ones who’ve traditionally had a problem with civil rights. Which party captures white Southerners as its primary demographic constituency now? My God this little nugget of bullshit certainly has had legs. Democrats used to be able to compete in the South, therefore modern-day Democrats are responsible for racism! Ta-da!

          Also, immigration from Mexico is more or less stalled right now, because the US job market sucks, Mexico is becoming less of a hellhole, and Obama has enforced immigration law more than any of his predecessors.

          It’s as if you’re living in a universe constructed of right-wing preconceptions and you haven’t bothered to check any of them in five years.

        6. For the last 16years the republican party has take a tactic of demonizing the Hispanic person in this country and they expect the Hispanic to vote for them? I also should add there are sending the same message to White Christian Voters and Blacks. I seen my old church (mostly White) flip from Conservative Christian voting GOP to Democrat over immigration.
          The problem is the GOP not the Hispanic

      2. “Making sincere overtures will at least begin the reversal of that trend.”

        That is some grade a stupid right there.

        Think about Tomas Sowell for a moment He’s a conservative Republican. He has been making sincere overtures to blacks for decades, trying to convince them that voting “R” is in their best interests. How’s that working out.

        1. The mistake here is that libertarians are assuming that the Democrats are arguing in good faith when they claim the Republicans are a bunch of racist, sexist bigots. They are not.

          I mean Gary Johnson supported drug legalization, more immigration and gay marriage and that didn’t earn him much support from blacks, gays or hispanics. Will this stop the Dems from calling libertarians a bunch of evil stupid racists? Of course not.

          1. ^^THIS^^

            Gary Johnson is for more open boarders than any Democrat I know. Yet, they still successfully call him a racist.

          2. They can say whatever they want. People aren’t stupid, they’ll still need evidence to push their narrative, regardless of whether they’re pushing it in good faith or not.

            1. People aren’t stupid, they’ll still need evidence to push their narrative

              Debatable. Also considering how any opposition to the Dems is racist then there is lots of evidence.

              1. Yeah, but when Dems scream RACIST at absurd times (they usually do so when they’re desperate) it tends to backfire on them.

          3. Johnson was elected governor in the most Hispanic state in the country, and when he ran for president on a third party ticket, he got 6% of the Hispanic vote in that state, compared to 3% of the white vote

            1. How much did he get Nationally?

              Also that is less than ten percent. A far ways to go before getting a significant chunk of the vote from any group.

              1. We’re talking about a Libertarian Party candidate here. 6% anywhere (and being a 100% more likely to vote for him than white people in a state where he served as governor, and thus has good name recognition) is pretty damn good for a third party candidate. And even if it didn’t hold up nationally (it’s hard to tell based on lack of data in other states), it still shows that a libertarian candidate can win over Hispanics. Johnson served as governor of New Mexico. Most people there know who he is. It’s not like this was some random state.

                And where is the evidence that Hispanics are less libertarian than whites? Not voting for the GOP doesn’t mean they can never be libertarians.

            2. Yep. Johnson didn’t even get much of the self-described libertarian vote. Using him is a bad example.

          4. I mean Gary Johnson supported drug legalization, more immigration and gay marriage and that didn’t earn him much support from blacks, gays or hispanics.

            Or whites, straights, Asians, women, Catholics, men, ….

            Maybe there are other factors at work here? Naw, couldn’t be, must be those damn black gay hispanics are too stupid to know what’s good for them, unlike everybody else.

            Will this stop the Dems from calling libertarians a bunch of evil stupid racists? Of course not.

            We should be so lucky as to get that kind of attention. They generally don’t distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, except to note that the Tea Party is just a concentrated form of the latter.

    3. NR is right in this case. I’m in favor of free movement of labor on principle, and I don’t particularly care whether Hispanic voters are yet another voting bloc that by and large supports suicidal economic policies. In that regard, they’re just like 80% of white people. But it does seem a little ridiculous that Reason is jumping on the ‘this is racist’ bandwagon when the point that low-income Hispanics by and large aren’t going to vote for free markets is clearly true.

      1. How many people actually vote for free markets?

      2. So much for capitalism, entrepreneurship, and the “American way”. Once “low-income”, always “low-income”.

    4. Apparently non-libertarians shouldn’t have any rights.

      1. They should have all rights except voting, which come to think of it, isn’t a right at all.

    5. Hispanics are not libertarian by and large

      I have never grasped why this is supposed to mean “things libertarians believe in”, such as free association/movement of labor/free markets, et al, do not apply to them.

      you make it sound as though,

      “if only the undocumented people seeking employment in our country were all reading Ayn Rand and Hayeck in their free time, *I’d totally support ‘free movement of labor*!”

      Which is actually worse than just saying, “I dont really believe in certain ‘libertarian’ ideas like free movement of labor”… it’s more like saying, “i believe in ‘libertarian’ priciples… but not for *those* people”

  4. I find it weird how much “Hispanics” are being lumped together. Anyone who knows any “Hispanics” knows better. They all think their group is better than all the rest–Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexicans, and so on.

    1. That reminds me of my super tolerant progressive ex who happened to be Mexican and absolutely hated Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Dominicans.

      1. I know several Cubans and PRs. They are all somewhere left of Micheal Moore and all hate Mexicans and each other.

        1. I grew up with many conservative Cubans here in Tampa. Like hardcore American conservative. Rubio-types, for the most part.

          1. I think they are more the older generation. The younger Cubans I know seem to be more Left.

            1. Did it ever occur to you that they skew left because they are young, not because they are Cuban?

            2. Well, there are established immigrants and less established ones. Also, with the Cubans, there are the people who fled Cuban when Castro took over and those that came much later.

    2. They all unite to look down on French speaking Caribbeans.

      1. That was going to be my next comment. I was riding in a cab in Miami a few years ago and the driver just went to town talking shit about all the Haitians.

        1. Oh man, you think that’s bad… call a Dominican woman, ‘puerto rican’…?

          … and be prepared to RUN

    3. Pro Libertate| 1.31.13 @ 2:51PM |#

      I find it weird how much “Hispanics” are being lumped together. Anyone who knows any “Hispanics” knows better. They all think their group is better than all the rest–Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexicans, and so on.

      At least, “Asians” are all the same and don’t have any animosity against each other. I mean, Japanese, Chinese, Korean… The Same! all their food is like, “boo koo jing jang wop”, and when they fight its like, “Hiiiiyaaa! Banzaaaaiiii!!!” and they’re like good at math and stuff but have small penises.

      i also think its very important to distinguish hispanic groups!

      The most useful 2 being, “Mexican” and “Not Mexican”

      1. Asians, too, then. Who do they all vote for in complete lockstep?

        While we’re at it, what’s all this about a “white” vote?

        1. Asians voted 3:1 for BO.

        2. While we’re at it, what’s all this about a “white” vote?

          i think thats the VDare community

          we have 2 resident white power advocates = KPres… and “Libertarian”?

          theyre the ones who are always talking about western civilization blah blah but when confronted probably wouldnt include ‘jews or the irish’ in their definition of ‘white’

  5. The fact is that Hispanics apparently chose Obama over Romney and, unless they did so as a group solely by coincidence, there’s some identity politics involved. Did they vote for Obama because of some common ground on an issue of importance to them as Hispanics, or did they vote against Romney for opposite reason?

    1. Obama delivered them nothing on the immigration issue except record deportations. Yet, they still voted for him. The only President that has ever granted amnesty was a Republican. And what good did it do the Republicans?

      1. Because they aren’t very good at creating a narrative. That’s partially because of the media bias and partially because GOP politicians routinely say stupid, racist shit about Hispanics.

        Remember those Sharon Angle ads on immigration? She could have dethroned Harry Reid but instead went full-retard on that issue and lost.

        1. Whatever. Hispanics don’t vote for the GOP because they don’t agree with them on much. It is the Libertarians who are kidding themselves here. Maybe Hispanics, or at least a majority of them, like big government and want more free shit. Hell everyone else does. And they wouldn’t be the first people to leave one place only to go to a new place and vote for the exact same policies that caused them to leave the old place.

          Reason never seems to have a problem admitting that liberals leave California and New York only to ruin the places they migrate too, why is that same phenomenon so hard to admit to when it involves Hispanics?

          1. “Hispanics don’t vote for the GOP because they don’t agree with them on much. It is the Libertarians who are kidding themselves here. Maybe Hispanics, or at least a majority of them, like big government and want more free shit.”

            You talk as if the republicans aren’t just another party of free shit.

            1. …or big government for that matter.

            2. They don’t seem to want to give away enough free shit. The Dems own the free shit mantle. Sorry, but “the GOP really wants to give you free shit” won’t win many free shit voters votes.

              1. No, the free shit republicans give generally goes to other interests. That said, I don’t see how we’d be any better off as a country if hispanics overwhelmingly voted for team red.

                1. You know who else likes free shit? Americans. I think we should keep them out. They’re just going to ruin America!

                  1. They are just going to overwhelming vote D. Whether that ruins America is another debate. I never said they would ruin the country. I just said they would be voting Democrat by huge majorities no matter what the Republicans do.

                    1. You act like they are the only ones voting Team Blue for free shit. Last time I checked, native born Americans were eating that shit up well above any “illegals”.

                    2. Romney won Independents and non-WhiteHispanics by significant margins.

                    3. If he won “Independents” by any margin, he would be fucking President.

                      As to what the fuck a “non-WhiteHispanic” is, I don’t even know, nor do I begin to understand what relevance that would have to anything, since voters ? citizens ? residents.

          2. Whatever. Hispanics don’t vote for the GOP because they don’t agree with them on much.

            You fundamentally don’t understand how politics works. Low-information voters, be they white, hispanic, black or whatever, tend to vote for who they think likes them the best. The specific policy opinions follow from that.

      2. Romney was significantly more anti-immigration than Bush or McCain and did worse than both guys among Hispanics, even though he did better with the general population than McCain did. The difference between McCain’s share of the Hispanic vote and Bush’s in 04 and 00 wasn’t that much different than the difference between vote share of the general population for those years. And Romney did much worse than McCain or Bush did among Asians.

  6. So, skymasked robbers are becoming a problem in NW Washington. So rather than do something about their insane gun laws and allow conceal and carry making street robbery a contact sport, the good liberals of NW Washington are considering banning sky masks. You can’t make this shit up.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..ime-in-dc/

    1. “And the next thing you know, the irrational thinkers will be talking about getting rid of scarves. A long scarf can make a good mask. Hmm. What’s next after that?”

      Hmm. Hijabs?

      1. They drop in from the clouds! You don’t even know they’re there until you’ve already been robbed. Then they jetpack away!

        1. Those are dropbears. Native to Australia.

        2. At first I thought he was talking about skydivers parachuting into peoples homes.

      2. Autocorrect. Just go with it.

    2. There is no way the robbers would ever find something else to cover their faces with…

    3. D.C. law already ban individuals ? ages 16 and up ? from wearing masks in public under certain circumstances, such as while committing a crime or with “the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass any other person.”

      What in the fuck. Who writes these laws? So it’s slightly more legal to commit a crime not masked than masked.

      But prosecution under the law appears infrequent.

      You think?

      1. Those anti mask laws are pretty common.

        1. I think the GA one dates to Reconstruction.

        2. They want to nip the superhero problem in the bud.

        3. Not in Minnesota. We’d kill the first politician who suggested it. It’s supposed to be about -16 at the bus stop tomorrow morning and that’s without the windchill.

      2. Frankly I would prefer to be robbed by someone in a mask. If they’re making an effort to conceal their identity, that implies they’re anticipating the victims are still going to be alive at the end.

      3. Pain| 1.31.13 @ 3:19PM |#

        D.C. law already ban individuals ? ages 16 and up ? from wearing masks in public….

        First the Keene Act…then Senator Kelly’s Mutant Registration Act…

        WTF. Am I supposed to fight crime, defend the weak, and protect planet earth *ONLY WEARING SLACKS AND A BANNANA REPUBLIC SWEATER??* That’s some bullshit

        1. Hoods and sunglasses are still legal. For now.

          1. OH GREAT, NOW INSTEAD OF THE FANTASTIC GILMORENATOR, PEOPLE WILL THINK THE FUCKING UNIBOMBER LEARNED TO FLY AND SHOOT LASERS FROM HIS FINGERS

    4. “They clearly are a problem. Otherwise, we wouldn’t see it being mentioned in all the reports,”

      I’ll bet something other than skimasks is mentioned more frequently “in all the reports”.

      1. maybe it’s being mentioned in reports because, I don’t know, victims are giving a description and a mask is something one would remember? Imagine an official saying blacks/hispanics/whites are a problem if the assailant in a series of events was from teh same group.

    5. D.C. law already ban individuals ? ages 16 and up ? from wearing masks in public under certain circumstances, such as while committing a crime

      There are no words.

  7. Welfare-Sucking Hispanics Are Politically Hopeless Anyway

    Seems to be a theme around the local comments board too. I guess the editors like it when the cosmotarians and the nativists duke it out, they keep tossing fuel on that fire.

    1. 1. cosmo vs. nativist
      2. ?????
      3. Profit

    2. I’m sure am glad we’ve been able to put everyone into boxes like that. Hear that, Cyto? You’re a cosmotarian. You should probably change your name to Cosmotoxic right away so there are no mixups.

  8. I don’t know all of these posts on Republicans and immigration seem a lot like concern trollings.

    Also isn’t a bit rich for libertarians to lecture Republicans considering how small the party is and how libertarians are constantly pilloried as stupid evil racists?

  9. Visa numbers are not the only problem.

    The heart of the problem is the labor certification requirement. This is the part of the law that says that no US company is allowed to hire a foreigner (and hence sponsor them for a visa) without first proving, to the satisfaction of the Department of Labor, that there is no qualified American willing to take the job.

    That is fundamentally the abbrogation of personal liberty that libertarians whould be concerned with. Employers shouldn’t have to ask the government permission to hire a foreigner in the first place.
    They should be allowed to hire whoever they damn well please.

    And fundamentally, that is the reason it is effectively impossible for anyone with less than a college degree to get a work sponsorship. Which is what makes it impossible to immigrate legally unless you have immediate US citizen relatives.

    The libertarian version of immigration reform should have eliminating labor certs as the number one priority. Yet neither side has proposed anything like that. The R’s want to hand out free visas to people with advanced degrees (who generally have no trouble getting a work sponsorship anyway), and increase the number of H1-Bs (which only go to people with college degrees anyway). And the D’s want to make all the illegals citizens as fast as possible, without changing anything else.

    1. The problem is, as pointed out on another thread, most of the illegals are only competitively in this labor market because they are illegal. Make them legal and subject to the labor laws and they would no longer be competitive in the labor market. They are not productive enough.

      We don’t have an illegal problem as much as we have a labor law problem in that we pass all of these feel good laws that make it impossible to legally and profitably hire anyone to do low productivity work. And some low productivity work has to be done. As Judge Smalls says, the world needs ditch diggers too.

      1. HM is still right. One wrong does not justify another.

        1. That is right because the worst thing we could ever do is live in reality. It is much better to just mindlessly adhere to principle regardless of how that actually affects the real world.

          1. All actions can be sorted into right and wrong by principle. Don’t pull that ‘reality or principle’ false dichotomy shit especially on an Objectivist. In the real world, it’s not the government’s job to cater to your political insecurities at massive cost to freedom.

            1. In the real world actions have consequences. If 20 million hard core communists were clambering for amnesty, would you give it to them knowing they would come here and do untold damage to the country? IT is their freedom isn’t it?

              Now I don’t think all the Hispanics are hard core communists. I use the hyperbole to make the point.

              Since when is immigration, (a right we sure as hell don’t have to any other country) the ultimate freedom to be given above all others?

              1. If 20 million hard core communists were clambering for amnesty, would you give it to them knowing they would come here and do untold damage to the country? IT is their freedom isn’t it?

                Yes John. It’s called being a libertarian, as opposed to being a conservative with no real principles.

              2. Since when is immigration, (a right we sure as hell don’t have to any other country) the ultimate freedom to be given above all others?

                So John is Tony now? OK, Tony, I feel like we’ve had this conversation before, but libertarian freedoms don’t conflict with each other. You are just calling the right to stop other from living next to you a freedom, when it isn’t. Got that Tony?

                1. He’s known as Red Tony for a reason.

                  1. He’s known as Red Tony for a reason.

                    Yes, because many of the people who post on here are dogmatic retards with ideological blind spots the size of the Empire State Building.

                    This may come as a shock to you, but Libertarians can be stupid and wrong too.

                2. I feel like we’ve had this conversation before, but libertarian freedoms don’t conflict with each other.

                  No ones freedom ever conflicts with anyone else’s. Jesus fucking Christ. That is so God demand stupid it makes me want to puke. Of course they do. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have any conflicts or really any need for politics.

                  Just think about how stupid that statement is. In one statement you just said there is no need whatsoever for any politics or dispute resolution of any sort.

                  How do you even feed yourself. Just stop. Stop thinking about immigration. It is rotting your brain.

                  1. Holy. Fucking. Shit. Maybe John is less-erudite Tulpa. JOHN YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT RIGHTS ARE OR HOW THEY WORK. They don’t conflict with one another. People do. This is an incredible statement John. It’s like ‘why conservatism is for chumps’ in one long-winded unaware bullshit bomb.

                    1. Haha, wow. John that doesn’t even merit a response. You are quoting Tony word for word now. Is this a joke?

                    2. With the exception of abortion, I can’t think of a single other time where there is a genuine conflict of rights.

                    3. Because you guys circumscribe rights whenever there appears to be a conflict.

                      So the shipwreck survivors running onto beachfront property situation is dealt with by amending property rights to except that situation.

                    4. The distinction between negative and positive rights is a priori, Tulpa.

          2. Um, isn’t that the point of having principles? If your values change out of convenience, then they’re not really principles.

            1. If you are unwilling to ever compromise any of your principles to the point of not compromising with anyone who disagrees with you and sacrificing your long term self interest, you are a fanatic.

              1. John is willing to sacrifice other people’s right to pursue happiness to his own self-interest. Noted.

                1. Hazel,

                  I don’t owe you or your rights shit. Make your own happiness. No one ever said I had to pay for it.

              2. No, it’s called being consistent, something both the D’s and R’s are horrible at. There’s nothing wrong with changing your opinion on something based on facts and reason, but it is quite another to have a splattershot ideology based on whatever outcome you deem to be the most convenient on any given day.

                By your logic, if tomorrow the majority of Hispanics decided to start voting GOP, you would gladly support open borders or an easy path to citizenship. That is just partisan pandering.

                1. Also Ran,

                  Since when is acting in your self interest a bad thing? Since when are Libertarians collectivists who insist on everyone give up something for the rights of others as Hazel mandates?

                  1. Acting in your own self interest is fine, it is a cornerstone of libertarianism. But so is the non-aggression principle, which you seem all to eager to violate by denying outsiders a fundamental human right. The welfare state is something I am also strongly against, but it doesn’t mean we have the authority to deny others their rights based on a broad generalization about an entire people, especially considering they had nothing to do with our current state of affairs.

                    Would you agree to keep the war on drugs going if it meant that the Dems would stop pursuing stricter gun control? I doubt it, and I think you are smart enough to know why.

                    1. There is no fundamental human right to cross a border. In fact there is a fundamental human right for people to form groups and have self determination. When you say, we can’t have a border, what you are saying is, I and others like me have no right to form a sovereignty.

                      This is one of those times where rights conflict. You know, those circumstances heller is too stupid to know exist.

                    2. Exactly John, you have no right to form a sovereignty, which is really just another way of saying legitimized coercion. You don’t have the right to coerce people. So you’re non-existent right to keep me from moving doesn’t conflict with my right to move around, because it doesn’t fucking exist.

                    3. People have every right to form groups. And they have a right to self determination. To say otherwise is to deny the legitimacy of every government and to be an anarchist.

                    4. People have every right to form groups. And they have a right to self determination. To say otherwise is to deny the legitimacy of every government and to be an anarchist.

                      Yes, but they don’t have a right to coerce me, to violate my right to self determination. Which is what sovereignty means.

                    5. Yes, but they don’t have a right to coerce me, to violate my right to self determination. Which is what sovereignty means.

                      and doesn’t this invite the “no one forces you to live hear” response? You can work to change laws you find unjust or vote with your feet and go where you feel most at home. But you don’t to craft your own law.

                    6. and doesn’t this invite the “no one forces you to live hear” response?

                      If I want to live on my property, then it’s my right to do so without being coerced. Period.

                    7. Of course people have the right to form groups, but that is not what we are talking about. Here, the voting majority get to dictate the terms of who can travel to my private property (even if I were to live on the border).

                      Going off the Judge’s article this morning, why should my right to invite a friend from out of the country to come live on my property, which I own, be left up to the voting majority to decide? That is morally wrong, it impedes on my property rights. Freedom to travel is a fundamental human right. Your ‘might makes right’ mentality is exactly the same crap that shrike and Tony spew around here.

                      So I ask you again: Would you agree to keep the war on drugs going if it meant that the Dems would stop pursuing stricter gun control? I doubt it, and I think you are smart enough to know why.

                    8. heller is right, but I would have phrased it differently: what he is saying is that you (and your group) have no right to form a sovereignty over me.

                      If you believe you do, you really are no different than Tony and his “rights are what the majority say they are” business. You are saying that groups have a right to self-determination, but individuals do not. And that’s why you’re called Red Tony.

                    9. There is no fundamental human right to cross a border. In fact there is a fundamental human right for people to form groups and have self determination. When you say, we can’t have a border, what you are saying is, I and others like me have no right to form a sovereignty.

                      This is one of those times where rights conflict. You know, those circumstances heller is too stupid to know exist.

                      “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” — Ayn Rand

                      Hint: yours is in the last sentence in your first paragraph.

                    10. RMA: damn that was an excellent quote.

                    11. There is no fundamental human right to cross a border.

                      The only legitimate reason that border exists is to enforce the security of that nation’s people as it pertains to protecting their rights. Not so much for indulging your political insecurities John. Not at all.

                    12. The only legitimate reason that border exists is to enforce the security of that nation’s people as it pertains to protecting their rights.

                      The border exists because the sovereign and by extension the people in it decided it exists. They don’t owe you or anyone else entrance. This is where Libertarians you go completely off the rails, with regards to the US. Libertarians never seem to show any interest in pressuring any other country to have open borders. Just the US.

                    13. I hereby pressure every other country to have open borders, recognizing the preexisting rights of peaceable individuals to travel, residence, and employment.

                      Those who are provable threats to the public safety or health can be denied entry. But the denial of entry of economic migrants should be discontinued posthaste.

                    14. Required reading from MikeP. Case closed.

                    15. Libertarians never seem to show any interest in pressuring any other country to have open borders. Just the US.

                      I don’t protest zoning ordinances in Seattle either, because I don’t live there or have any plans to move there.

                    16. Beat me to it, and better worded too.

                    17. Libertarians never seem to show any interest in pressuring any other country to have open borders. Just the US.

                      Um, maybe because I own property here?

                    18. Libertarians don’t believe the state should have the right to use coercion ‘for the common good’ (aka sovereignty). Shocking!

                      John, when did you discover this dark secret of libertarians? Why didn’t you reveal it sooner?

                    19. Libertarians don’t believe the state should have the right to use coercion ‘for the common good’ (aka sovereignty). Shocking!

                      John, when did you discover this dark secret of libertarians? Why didn’t you reveal it sooner?

                      I really am fucking astounded here. Red Tony is making the same arguments for tight control of regulation of immigration that the statists make for tight control of marijuana, guns, 32 ounce sodas, foie gras, strip clubs, prostitution, CAFE standards, and anything else: might makes right (and if you don’t like it, you’re free to leave). And he is completely oblivious to the similarity.

                    20. RMA,

                      You are a fucking moron. Yes marijuana should be legal. But just because it is a bad policy doesn’t mean governments can’t do it. Just means they are dumb to do so.

                    21. You are a fucking moron.

                      Means nothing, coming from you.

                      Yes marijuana should be legal. But just because it is a bad policy doesn’t mean governments can’t do it. Just means they are dumb to do so.

                      I never said they couldn’t do it; obviously they can. I have the right to life, but it doesn’t stop me from possibly being murdered. The mere existence of rights does not prevent them from being violated. But it does not mean that violation of rights is a right.

                    22. Hilarious! Government can (and will) do whatever the fuck they want. We are talking about what they should and should not do, John. Governments should legalize marijuana. Governments shouldn’t restrict immigration.

                  2. It’s RATIONAL self interest John.

              3. That’s true for a conservative or liberal, whose principles are merely a tool for reaching a desired end. But for a libertarian, the principle of freedom is the desired goal, it is the self interest.

                1. Interesting that I had a very similar exchange with a Townhall conservative just the other day. Similarly to John, he believed that the right to association and self-determination granted individuals the right to form organizations (the State, in the TH discussion) empowered to deprive others of these, and other, rights. There was no bridging this logical contradiction. Having been raised under the notions that “majority rules” and “restrict freedom to protect freedom”, the right to association somehow morphed into the right to form protection rackets. And every rejection of this premise was met with the remark that this would violate his right to association.

      2. If we weren’t so goddamn concerned with who is allowed to work for who and on what terms, most of the problem would go away.

        I wish we spent our law enforcement efforts raiding the welfare offices instead of employers.

      3. most of the illegals are only competitively in this labor market because they are illegal

        That’s probably not true of all of them. Another side effect of the welfer state is that US citizens don’t pick fruit in the sun all day for minimum wage.

        1. Instead they’re unemployed.

    2. Hazel says,

      That is fundamentally the abbrogation of personal liberty that libertarians whould be concerned with

      John says,

      “No – Mexicans”

      Also J-dog… it’s *Judge Smails*.

      Also, if you’re Catholic?…”well, I’m afraid you can’t come.”*

      *get it? like, “to America”!

      ’cause as we both know, it was OBVIOUS to the protestant WASP middle classes in the US at the turn of the century that there was simply NO WAY that the culture of the Papists – which encouraged them to fornicate, drink, fight, resist authority, and otherwise refuse to be productive, compliant citizens, and would simply try to enforce their Popish authority here in the US – could possibly assimilate to that of Liberty-Loving Real Americans

      I mean, it was 100% clear! I don’t see how people didn’t realize that! HOW WE EVER LET THE BLOODY IRISH INTO THIS COUNTRY AND RUIN IT IS ASTOUNDING! SEE WHAT HAPPENED YOU FOOLS!!! LOOK AT THE CESSPOOL THEY MADE OF THIS PLACE!

      1. Well the main purpose of Teh Publik Skoolz was to assimilate the Catholic Irish into becoming proper American Protestants. That worked out well didn’t it.

        Also more than a few Reasonoids are opposed to “Popish authority” today.

        Oh and plenty of classical liberals supported public schools and hated Catholicism back in the day.

        1. oh, my bad – Nativist antiCatholocism is apparently de rigeur… carry on

          1. Who said anything about nativism?

            How is the anti-catholicism of yesterday different from the anti-catholicism of today?

            1. How is the anti-catholicism of yesterday different from the anti-catholicism of today?

              good question

              its in that no one thinks the Pope is actually going to influence control of the US govt anymore…but they spew nonsense about the foreigner’s ‘culture’ just the same, ignoring that history shows that people assimilate quite rapidly despite assertions of its impossibility

  10. Supreme Alt-Text Victory

  11. Bart: What happened to you NR, you used to be cool.
    NR: I’m still cool!
    Bart: Nah! You’ve changed, man.
    NR: Well, I do have this new country club membership, but you can’t see it! Oh, you can.

  12. What are you doing… to significantly increase the number of visas for legal immigrants?

    But Matt! IF we increase the number of visas for legal immigrants, it will just clog the welfare state! Haven’t you been reading HnR this past week? We can’t allow more immigration until we completely dismantle our entitlement programs! It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, that’s just a distraction, what matters is that they are brown Democrats and we can’t have them in our country! Libertarianism is about not allowing any potential Democrats into this country!

    1. Are…are you John? I’m confused!

  13. As I’ve said before the pro-immigration libertarians strike me as very similar to those 19th century liberals who supported universal suffrage. That worked out well didn’t it?

    1. You strike me as kind of stupid.

  14. What killed the Republican Party in California was Pete Wilson’s backing of Proposition 187. That proposition prevented illegals from getting government services. It had nothing to do with immigration, just free shit.

    But you guys honestly think a platform of open boarders but no free shit is going to win all of the these Hispanic votes. What fucking planet do you people live on. You say every damn day on here how Americans just want free shit. Well what the hell do you think is so different about Hispanics?

    1. For fucks sake, WE DON’T CARE ABOUT GETTING HISPANIC VOTES OR TAKING AWAY DEMOCRAT VOTES. We are libertarians.

      Red State is that way, retard =

      1. I don’t care what you care about dipshit. If you don’t care about votes, then stop telling the GOP what to do. Why the hell do they owe your dumb asses their own political deaths?

        Just stop thinking or talking about immigration Heller. It is clearly causing your brain cells to shut off.

        You want to support open borders, have fun. But blowing smoke up peoples asses and pretending it will do anything but import millions of new Dem voters.

        1. Clearly you do care, or you wouldn’t be whining about how “libertarians just don’t understand why we need to restrict freedoms to be free WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!”

          Pretty rich coming from a braindead conservative like you.

          1. As Gladstone says below, Reason is the one running article after article claiming amnesty is the way to Hispanic votes. I am just calling bullshit on that notion.

            1. Well they certainly aren’t getting any votes by being a bunch of nativist assholes. Sounds to me like Reason is making perfect sense.

              1. Sounds to me like Reason is concern trolling just like you are. If you don’t care about the GOP, shut the fuck up about them with your advice.

                1. Okay give the Dems a vote block for free. Have fun with electoral oblivion.

                  The Hisps may not vote GOP even with some immigration sanity, but they certainly never will without it.

                  1. Okay give the Dems a vote block for free. Have fun with electoral oblivion.
                    You mean like the libertarians?

                    1. But with no excuses.

                2. Uh oh, John, I am talking about the GOP but I don’t care about them!

                  Is this making you’re head explode?

              2. It is pretty dumb to equate “against illegal immigrants” with “nativist”.

                In any event, the GOP gets around half the votes in the country. Proponents of open borders get less than 1%. Do the math on that one.

                1. Restricting immigration is the same thing as nativism.

                  1. So your two claims are:

                    1. Republicans can’t win votes by being nativists

                    2. Everyone who wants any restrictions on immigration is a nativist.

                    Problem: between 90 and 99 percent of Americans want restrictions on immigration. One of your two claims must, logically, be false.

                    1. O the tortures logic goes through for the amusement of the insipid!

                      If the Republicans became more nativist, would they get more votes? No, they already corner the market on overt nativism. The single issue nativists are already on board with them. People like Democrats, who are moderately nativist, won’t be converted to the Republican party, even though they are nativist. So your little thought experiment fails from the start because it uses binary logic instead of recognizing degrees.

                      If the Republican party moves in the opposite direction, it stands a chance of getting people who are less nativist. It doesn’t risk losing hardcore nativists because it is still more nativist than the alternative.

                    2. So you see the only thing that proves to be logically false is the belief in your own intelligence.

        2. I don’t care what you care about dipshit.

          Asking questions was probably a bad strategy, then.

      2. Then why are there so many articles about why the GOP should be trying to get Hispanic votes when that is irrelevant to libertarians attitudes toward immigration?

        1. Because it’s not relevant to the GOP.

          1. Think of it this way. The Democrats should be cutting spending, eliminating welfare, deregulate, getting rid of the public schools, allowing for fatty foods, etc. That is the Right Thing to Do.

            Will adopting these programs hurt the Dems? Yes. Should libertarians care? No.
            Should libertarians act like this would get the Dems more votes? No.

            1. The Dems don’t currently need votes, in case you didn’t notice.

              1. Well opposing Social Security and Medicare won’t get the Republicans votes.

                Also “GOP should get more Hispanic votes” and “libertarians support open borders” are different arguments that keep getting connected by Reason for some um….reason.

                  1. Reason is arguing that the GOP needs to support more immigration in order to get more Hispanic votes in order to win elections.

                    John doesn’t think supporting it will get them more votes. He also opposes open borders which is a separate argument.

                    You disagree because you support open borders. The libertarian merits of open borders are totally separate from the electability of the GOP.

                    Basically two different things are being argued. And with the argument that the welfare state needs to eliminated first then we get three separate arguments.

                    Also the electability of the GOP is a separate argument from the notion that Social Security and Welfare should be eliminated.

                    1. I don’t see the problem. Multiple thing can be argued at the same time without conflict.

                      Saying “Well opposing Social Security and Medicare won’t get the Republicans votes” is pointless. So what if Reason did not argue Republicans should support these things for votes? What obligates them to?

                    2. I don’t see the problem. Multiple thing can be argued at the same time without conflict.

                      The problem is when you are talking past each other. Writing posts about how the GOP should capture the Hispanic vote implies that GOP capturing the Hispanic vote is the goal. Nothing inherently libertarian about that. What does libertarian views about immigration have to do with GOP capturing the hispanic vote?

                      So what if Reason did not argue Republicans should support these things for votes? What obligates them to?

                      I think it is silly to give the GOP election advice when you know full well what you really want the GOP to do is very unpopular?

                    3. Again you seem to be under the impression that Reason has some kind of guideline about what people can write about. I don’t see the problem with anything you’ve said.

                    4. Who said anything about guidelines? I was talking about internal consistency.

                      I wish Reason would stop trying to pretend its pro-immigration views have anything to do with getting the GOP more hispanic votes.

                    5. Where is the internal contradiction?

                    6. Look at the article. Welch talks about how the GOP’s attitude is self defeating. Why would libertarians who want immigration reform give a shit about that? They aren’t really interested if more immigration will hurt the GOP.

                    7. Another annoying thing about these articles is that there is no discussion of the actual merits of the actual immigration reform proposals. Should it be passed?

                    8. Yeah, that’s not a contradiction. Not knowing why someone does something doesn’t mean they have contradicted themselves. Basically your complaint is just an argument from ignorance.

  15. Imagine a world where you can live and work wherever you want, and travel from place to place without government thugs at the border hassling you, and where no one can vote to take any of your money away for any purpose.

    1. It would be great. But it won’t be one we will be living in ever.

      How about this. How about we totally open our borders to any country that wants to open its borders to us? If Mexico wants to grant Americans immediate paths to Mexican citizenship, we will do the same for them.

      1. Soooo. If they stop punching themselves in the face, we’ll stop punching ourselves in the face? Okaaaaay.

        1. Wouldn’t we both benefit from that? And has ever occurred to you that totally open borders might not be a panacea? Plenty of countries have been very successful without open borders. There is nothing to say we can’t be. You only think it is “punching ourselves in the face” because open borders is part of the Libertarian holy trinity. It is a religion not a policy at this point.

          1. We would both benefit from that. We would also benefit from unilateral border opening. Christ this is the exact same argument that anti-trade troglodytes make.

    2. Imagine there’s no countries
      It isn’t hard to do
      Nothing to kill or die for
      And no religion too
      Imagine all the people living life in peace

      You, you may say
      I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
      I hope some day you’ll join us
      And the world will be as one

      Imagine no possessions
      I wonder if you can
      No need for greed or hunger
      A brotherhood of man
      Imagine all the people sharing all the world

      1. Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      2. And, by the way, I am very glad there are countries.

        The primary purpose of countries is to keep other countries’ worse laws and enforcement out of their territories. That is, after all, the definition of sovereignty.

        Note that opening the borders to peaceable individuals in no way impinges on this benefit of countries.

  16. preferably one that will expose a particularly off-putting strain within the GOP

    And as this article shows, if no such strain is forthcoming amnesty supporters will go ahead and invent one anyway.

    Honestly, this was a shockingly dishonest reading of National Review. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.

  17. Reagan supported amnesty, and that neither stopped illegal immigration or helped the GOP’s cause with Latinos.

    If you live in LA and actually interact with Latinos, you know most of them are either on welfare or strongly believe in an “active” government that promotes social justice for the people. They’ll reject the notion of a “big” government, of course. NR might be wrong on the tone, but they got it right on the substance.

    Writers and commentators here routinely engage in self indulgent, unrestrained insults on statists (Bloomberg, the two big blue states, unions, Obama, etc) all the time. Why become so sensitive when conservatives address facts? Haven’t you defended Ron Paul, who was sound on substance but made errors in judgment in the past?

    If what passes as “Xenophobia” in America is someone suggesting that ” immigrants are lazy and tend to be on welfare”, then it’s a pretty nice place to live in.

    1. Libertarians assume everyone in the world thinks and acts just like they do. It is their tragic downfall.

      1. No and no.

        1. Yes and yes. It wouldn’t be a blind spot if you could see it.

          1. You’re projecting your flaws on us again.

            We’re well aware others aren’t like us. It’s our main reason to drink.

          2. John, you keep pounding this retarded idea in the face of massively contradictory evidence.

            If we thought everyone thought like we did, we wouldn’t be advocating for freedom; it would be totally unnecessary. We’d be acting like progressives with their calls for “dialogue” that leads to predetermined conclusions.

            Instead we largely predict how government violence is going to make things worse and get called names.

            Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy.

            1. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

              It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

              You’re a smart guy, and watching you disengage your grape and become a retard is kind of sad.

              1. Libertarians consistently deny that anyone would ever move to a country to collect welfare, that anyone would ever do things like engage in warfare without a good reason. They do it all of the fucking time.

                Libertarians are almost to a person, reasonable, moral and hard working people. But they just don’t get that most of the world is not like that.

                And their other blind spot, is they will absolutely broach no criticism. They are not very good at self examination or criticism.

                Ask yourself, are there any flaws to your ideology or your thinking or do you believe and have discovered the perfect political ethos? If you believe the latter, you probably are not very self aware.

                1. .Libertarians consistently deny that anyone would ever move to a country to collect welfare, that anyone would ever do things like engage in warfare without a good reason. They do it all of the fucking time.

                  By which John really means ‘basically never’.

                  And their other blind spot, is they will absolutely broach no criticism.

                  FP aside, they only cast out shitty criticism ie yours. And they are mized on FP.

                  are there any flaws to your ideology or your thinking

                  Objectivism is flawless.

                  1. Objectivism is flawless.

                    LOL. That was funny. I have to admit.

                2. “Libertarians consistently deny that anyone would ever move to a country to collect welfare”

                  The vast majority do not move here for that reason.

                  And it’s not that libertarians think everyone thinks like them (hell, I think most libertarians think the opposite). It’s that libertarians don’t think rights should be based on whether people vote for Team Red like you do

              2. You’re a smart guy, and watching you disengage your grape and become a retard is kind of sad.

                Not as sad as seeing sarc claim

                1) That government control over immigration isn’t statist, and claiming so is a strawman argument.

                while simultaneously claiming

                2) People who think we should reform our immigration system love the welfare state, and any denial of this means they believe intentions trump results.

          3. It wouldn’t be a blind spot if you could see it.

            There are none so blind as they who choose not to see.

      2. Do you know who else had a “Downfall?”

        1. I know someone who had an untergang. Not personally, mostly through thepiratebay and youtube.

    2. You keep using the words “Latino” and “immigrant” interchangeably. Are you too stupid to know that “Los Angeles” is a Spanish name? That it belonged to Mexico long before it belonged to the US? That many Latinos have been native for more generations than your own ancestors?

    3. I live in LA. Most people here support active government. Even the vast majority of supposedly small government Republicans in this country support active government

      1. The phrase “regardless of race or ethnicity” should follow the word “government” in the second sentence

      2. Then why is Reason claiming that if Romney had been more libertarian he would have done better?

        1. It depends what issue he was more libertarian on.

  18. Okay the problem with these immigration articles is that at least three different arguments are being made.

    First there is the “GOP should try to get Hispanic votes.”

    Second is the “Open borders is the ideal libertarian goal”

    Third is the “Are the current immigration reform proposals on the whole beneficial or not?”

    1. Yes, concern-trolling about how the Republicans should just kick the football is just dumb. Defend a libertarian policy on immigration, but don’t pretend that doing so will have Republicans capturing the Latino vote.

  19. Somehow many libertarians (like liberals) can’t grasp the whole concept of “culture”.

    Hispanic culture favors big government.

    You can see this yourself. Just how many hispanics are on the staff at Reason? At least National Review has one, that K-Lo woman (who is only “conservative” because she’s one of those abortion is my main issue types).

    1. And yet latin America is trending to freedom. Hell, Colombia is going to have more sensible drug laws than America.

      1. This is curious. Latin Americais trending towards a smaller state?

        Venezuela? Argentina? Brasil? Uruguay? Nicaragua?

        1. Actually, Brazil IS trending the in right direction in regards to freedom. The fact that you included it on e same list ass Venezuela and Argentina show you appearantly know shit about what’s currently going on in Latin America.

          Also, Urugauy is in the process of liberalizing its drug laws as well as its economy.

          Seriously, admit it… you pulled that list out your ass.

        2. Also, before you respond… Full disclosure: I’ve had close contact to Brazil through marriage, done extensive research on its economc history, particularly the liberalizations over the last 20 years and am currently living in the country.

    2. Somehow retards like you can’t grasp the fact that culture is irrelevant to who has what rights.

      1. To be fair to his point, culture does unfortunately impact to what degree a society and the government over it will respect those rights.

          1. His point is regarding the effect that a large number of people coming into America will ultimately have on our rights-respectyness. Whether or not that should have any bearing on letting them in is a different point.

    3. “Hispanic culture favors big government.”

      That’s a pretty broad statement. Please, tell us more about this “Hispanic culture” Mr. Science.

    4. Hispanic culture favors big government.

      “Hispanic” IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH “immigrant”, you ignorant fuck! There are many areas in this nation where “Hispanic culture” IS THE NATIVE CULTURE!

      Wanna know why people think you’re racist? Because you can’t tell the fucking difference between an immigrant and a Hispanic Angelino whose family has been here since before the Mayflower! It’s not about the immigration to you, it’s all about the color of their skin and their non-Anglo-Saxon surnames.

      1. There are many areas in this nation where “Hispanic culture” IS THE NATIVE CULTURE!

        Spain is part of this nation?

        I know some Navajos and Apache who would think that’s funny.

        1. You know what I mean dammit! There are places in this country where a Hispanic/Latino/Mexican culture is the historic norm, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture that many nativists insist is the original culture.

  20. Funny how the same magazine and same group of commentators who go ape shit over Israeli settlements in Palestine go equally ape shit at even the hint that the US might be able to control its border.

    Why don’t you guys believe in open borders Gaza? Sure Israel doesn’t have open borders for Palestinians. But so what. Mexico doesn’t allow Americans to immigrate.

    1. Way to go John! Keep collectivizing and making assumptions about people’s political opinions with no real basis!

      You must be a fucking psychic.

      1. No one here objects to Israeli settlements? That will be news to a lot of people.

        1. Reason and its commentariat seem a lot less myopic on the Israel than several years ago.

          1. That must be why Underzog left us to pursue his musical career.

        2. Yes, John, either everyone believes something or no one believes it! You’ve proven once and for all the quality of collectivist thinking!

    2. No one is suggesting the USG cede control of borders. We just want the USG to stop using that power for evil. That is another straw man you fornicate with.

    3. Mexico gives every American that shows up a six month tourist visa–just for askin’.

      I knew lots of Americans who got work visas while in Mexico on those tourist visas.

      Also, I’m not sure the Mexico/Gaza analogy holds water since there haven’t been a lot of suicide bombers coming across the border from Mexico–but comin’ from Gaza? That’s been a problem. Just as soon as Mexico becomes a steady source of suicide bombers to San Diego, I’ll be ready to shut the border down, pronto.

  21. The enemy is, was, and always will be the welfare state. Legal immigration, by intention or by by-product, will do nothing but increase it. Reduce the welfare state, and most of the problems with immigration are similarly reduced.

    Neither party is interested in that, so we get scapegoating and law-enforcement arguments.

    “Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.”

    “That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off. ”

    – Milton Friedman.

    http://freestudents.blogspot.c…..-said.html

    1. For me the arguments that free movement of people will make the welfare state even more unsustainable are very frustrating; I honestly don’t care about protecting the welfare state. Let it fucking die! Why should I suffer all the harms that are visited upon me as collateral damage in the government’s effort to prevent me and my fellows from doing business with people born in the wrong place, merely to preserve a doomed and frankly evil system?

    2. “The enemy is, was, and always will be the welfare state. Legal immigration, by intention or by by-product, will do nothing but increase it. Reduce the welfare state, and most of the problems with immigration are similarly reduced.”

      I am right there with you on that.

      If it weren’t for the welfare state (including free public schools, etc.), I wouldn’t care any more about immigrants than I do about native born Americans.

      Actually, the welfare state when coupled with the immigration issue makes from some really sick arguments coming from native born anti-immigration people–who start to think that being native born somehow entitles them to the proceeds of the welfare state…

      As if the right to feed at the welfare trough were what it means to be a native-born American.

    3. Unlike you nativists, Milton Friedman did not pretend that this situation was a good thing. He was adamantly opposed to the welfare state, and actively worked to get rid of it. You nativists wouldn’t care one bit about the welfare state if it weren’t so damned convenient for your crypto-racism.

  22. “This Romneyesque method of applying Marxist-style economic determinism to entire voting populations”

    Noting population statistics does not imply determinism. If the facts are that people who are net beneficiaries of government transfer payments are statistically more likely to support those payments, recognizing those facts is not economic determinism. It’s a statistical generalization.

    Reason is really big on open borders these days, and is consistently making invalid arguments in support of it. Come up with a good argument, or just put a banner at the top of every page saying “YAY Open Borders!”, but these bogus arguments are making “Reason” look like “Unreason”.

  23. OK, John has become LoneWacko. Really. He seems to have lost what little libertarian understanding he had. To address the point above about “freedoms” not effecting each other (I haven’t done this in a while so this will feel good):

    All rights are inherent. They are an inseparable part of the human condition. An individual’s right, by definition, can not affect another individual’s rights. If some action does affect another’s rights then the perpetrator of that action did not have a right to perform the action in the first place. NOW, I have a right to hire whomever I wish. Period. If that person then exercises their right to vote in a way you disagree with then tough titties. Because, even if every person voted to enslave black people it would not be legitimate, the same as welfare etc. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us to defend our rights, not by restricting the rights of others but by supporting them.

    1. And the focus on hispanics is blind to history. “The dirty Irish”, “the damn jews”, “the filthy italians”, “the scary Catholics”…for fucks sake…haven’t we seen this movie before?

      I bet John things Japanese internment was a good thing during WWII also.

      1. I bet John things Japanese internment was a good thing during WWII also.

        I will bet you are a moron who slanders his opponents because you are incapable of making good arguments.

        1. John, the internment comment was obviously out of line, but you have made it abundantly clear today that you believe it’s okay to let 51% of American voters decide what rights I (and non-Americans) can exercise.

        2. So you don’t think Japanese internment was good?

          Why do you hate our sovereignty, John?

        3. Dude…how long you been commenting here. You say this about me? Fine, you are about to join the Dunphy file. I gave you a cogent argument on the nature of rights which you seemed to ignore. You used to be my example of conservatives who could be educated in the ways of liberty but I see you may be as blind as the lefties that post here.

        4. There’s a lot of those around here.

          1. still haven’t addressed my argument…projecting you are, I would say.

            1. I addressed it just below.

      2. NOW, I have a right to hire whomever I wish.

        And the US govt has an obligation to bend over backwards so that the person you hire can be at the work site on time?

        1. No, the US government has an obligation to mind its own fucking business.

          1. Border control is its business..

            1. Yeah, just like drug control is the government’s business.

              Of course it really isn’t the government’s business what drugs I decide to take, and it isn’t their business where I decide to go.

        2. There’s no bending over backwards required. And let’s not pretend that the current immigration laws set up a line that everyone just has to go through and then they get in. That’s not how it works. And please cite the clause in the Constitution that justifies current immigration law? “Naturalization” is not synonymous with “immigration”

          1. I don’t remember you championing the constitutionality of Arizona’s attempt to supplement the fedgov’s border enforcement.

            1. What? I didn’t even post on this site until a few months ago. The Arizona border thing was big news two years ago

              1. The case was decided just last June.

                So is it your position that AZ SB 1070 was constitutional, since the fedgov can’t invoke the Supremacy Clause for an authority they don’t have?

                1. I wasn’t on here in June.

                  Anyways, while I disagree with SB 1070, I don’t think it is unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause grounds

    2. An individual’s right, by definition, can not affect another individual’s rights. If some action does affect another’s rights then the perpetrator of that action did not have a right to perform the action in the first place.

      Question-begging 101.

      Does an owner of oceanfront property have the right to force shipwreck survivors off his land back into the depths of the ocean?

      1. According to Walter Block and some other anarcho-purists, it’s perfectly fine to force them back into the sea. Someone refuses to pay rent in your lifeboat? Toss them overboard!

        Of course most libertarians vehemently disagree with this. Property rights are strong but they are not absolute. This is why we have courts, rather than Little Red Books of Rothbard, to adjudicate disputes.

        1. But it’s an example of rights coming into conflict (if you believe the survivors have a right to life). “Natural rights” philosophy is inconsistent.

          No ethical philosophy is consistent except nihilism.

          1. No it isn’t, it’s an example of negative rights in conflict with positive rights. The libertarian definition of freedom rejects positive rights like the right to stay on someone’s property without permission.

          2. Nice try. All rights come inherent (there is that word again) attached to a responsibility. Because a ship has wrecked n your shore your rights have not been violated to any more extent than the damage. Therefore you havent the authority to murder people, merely recover your damages to the extent possible. Some an-caps would be like what was said above but not libertarians. The proper role of government is to actually facilitate the resolution of such a dispute. NOW, that being said, it is highly unlikely that this situation would ever arise.

            I would like to point out that Tulpa and John are both ignoring the fact that the whole point of principles is to not compromise them…Harkens back to the days of MNG it does.

            1. Also, don’t make me start that whole “What is government thing” I did with Warren like four years ago…I haven’t the energy. Besides, I am brewing.

            2. I’m not getting what you’re trying to say here. Rights are attached to responsibilities? That’s a loophole large enough to fly a predator drone through. Leftists would love to be able to start from that premise.

              The right to private property includes the right to exclude people from said property, right? Shipwreck survivors, drunken revelers, mime conventions, whatever, they all violate that right if they step onto your property without your permission.

          3. Not to defend the natural rights as a philosophy (it’s a nice working set of idea, but hardly a rigorous philsophy), but rights coming into conflict does not make natural rights inconsistent. Properties come into conflict all the time! No libertarian with a brain cell thinks otherwise.

            1. No libertarian with a brain cell thinks otherwise.

              C. Bandit probably has a brain cell. I don’t know how he would type otherwise.

              1. Are you going to be here all night?

                Where’s my shotgun?

  24. I’m confused how the libertarian perspective as iterated here, focuses on “compassion” for illegal immigrants who might be deported, but seems to care less about American citizens who can’t get the healthcare they need. Where’s the compassion in that case? And why do “Hispanics” overwhelmingly support illegal immigration when it’s lawless and racist? My Vietnamese coworker is not on a crusade to import more people from his home country. I’ve never met someone from India who supports illegal immigration within “their community”. Come to think, they consider it a priority to learn English as well. Perhaps it’s just a matter of geography, but I bet it’s a cultural value issue, not a “compassion” issue. Libertarians need to face the fact that tribalism is real, and we’re playing on the world stage as a team. I’m all for recruiting more members as long as they share our basic values. People immigrating from lawless countries come here deliberately by breaking the law, then make demands in “their” favor. I imagine that will turn America into the very place they’re running from. How hard is that to understand? Shall we allow 1 billion poor to come here for the “opportunity”? Reality is not a libertarian ideal.

    1. JAnet,

      I’ll explain. If you can’t find a store that has bread on its shelves, your rights haven’t necessarily been violated; there just may be no bread for them to sell.

      On the other hand, if I point a gun at you and prevent you from buying bread from someone who wants to sell it to you by chasing you out of their store, your rights are being violated.

      Hope that helps.

    2. What tarran said, but also

      Reality is not a libertarian ideal.

      Reality is no one’s ideal, sweetheart.

      1. Dr Pangloss pointed out that this must indeed be the best of all possible worlds, and I see no reason to disagree

        well, except T o n y

    3. HEALTHCARE (SIC) MEDICAL CARE IS NOT A FUCKING RIGHT!

      1. It should be.

  25. If we’re giving advice to Republicans, I’d say extend broad political asylum to Christians from non-Christian countries. There’s a potential Rep voting base, unless I miss my guess.

    1. Eduard van Haalen| 1.31.13 @ 4:37PM |#

      If we’re giving advice to Republicans, I’d say extend broad political asylum to Christians from non-Christian countries. There’s a potential Rep voting base, unless I miss my guess.

      Uh.

      That sounds about as politically astute as the French charity (* like their version of the salvation army) that decided to only offer *pork* soup in their soup kitchens… because, you know… the wogs can fucking starve for all we care!

      Why not do an edit of the SoL?

      Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
      Send these, the homeless,
      Tempest-tossed to me

      But only if
      they aren’t Hispanic
      or Arab
      and seem inclined
      to Vote GOP
      – No Fatties

      1. Hey look, it’s John!

        Respect mah sovereigntaaaaaaah!

      2. So … you quoted a Zionist to refute EvH’s religious nationalism.

        1. Why would this country want Christian refugees from persecution, anyway? What would they have to contribute to our national dialogue? They would just make hostile propaganda against the other, more inclusive and tolerant, religions.

          1. Eduard van Haalen| 1.31.13 @ 7:53PM |#

            Why would this country want Christian refugees from persecution, anyway?

            as long as they’re not Catholic, apparently… because THOSE PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS, right?

        2. Sidd Finch| 1.31.13 @ 5:07PM |#

          So … you quoted a Zionist to refute EvH’s religious nationalism.

          OMG

          …you’re telling me… after all these years i didn’t know…

          THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS *JEWISH*???

          in all seriousness = you completely disregard the substance of the point of “liberty” and that this country was attractive to people for the very freedom and liberty and protection from government persecution it offered, and that poem was an articulation of this great concept…

          …and your only response is, “the author was a zionist?” (presumably, ergo – not to be taken seriously? as though the actual poem has no meaning of substance?)

          So, at what point did your PROUD AMERICAN forebears get off a boat and show up here, dear sir? (and how proud would they be you find the whole idea of letting people show up similarly somewhat distateful)

          1. “the author was a zionist?” (presumably, ergo – not to be taken seriously?

            Why would I have a problem with Zionism? I’m not the one opposed to immigration restrictions.

            as though the actual poem has no meaning of substance?)

            I will concede that that plaque poem has more substance than the average plaque poem.

  26. What the nativists want is completely unworkable and morally abhorrent: they want to deport all the illegals. It’s why they have such a hard time coming to the table for immigration reform. They are, in fact, tolerating year after year of de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants because, I suppose, they are living under the delusion that they can eventually get their way and have their mass expulsion.

    Ironically the one person who’s kicked out more illegal immigrants than anyone else in at least all of recent history is one Barack Obama. His administration’s increased enforcement combined with the US’s shitty job market combined with Mexico’s somewhat improved demographic situation has caused immigration from Mexico to the US to be essentially stalled.

    So obviously immigration itself is a non-problem right now if it ever was one, and the issue that has to be handled is the de facto amnesty limbo situation that has resulted from the US’s inability to have adult political conversations. This limbo does serve the interest of the industries that want cheap migrant labor. But the political coalition might exist that can clean up the system. It’s just not going to be fruitfully informed by idiots with fantasies of mass deportation.

    1. Wanting to deport all the illegals doesn’t make a person a “nativist”. A nativist would want to deport all the legal immigrants, too, and nobody’s calling for that.

      In any event, if deportation is impossible and de facto amnesty already exists… what’s our incentive for “immigration reform”, again?

      1. A nativist would want to deport all the legal immigrants, too, and nobody’s calling for that.

        You obviously haven’t been reading the HnR comments recently.

      2. Because there’s presumably a practical, humane, and sensible immigration policy somewhere in the space between mass deportation and a mass black market in cheap labor?

        1. If it is impossible to keep people from immigrating illegally and impossible to kick them back out once they do — the cornerstones of Reason’s argument — then, no, there isn’t a “practical, humane, and sensible immigration policy” possible. You can’t have an immigration policy at all if it is impossible to keep unwanted people out of the country.

          Maybe the Reasonoids are right and enforcement and deportation are impossible. If so, the only options are “open borders” and “black market illegal immigrant labor”. The second choice is by far the best.

          1. The second choice is by far the best.

            Wrong.

            1. Sorry, I should have been more precise. The second option is the best for Americans. It is not, I concede, the best policy for foreigners.

              1. cuz wat furrnerz ever done nothin fur mericans. mi pappy wuz burn in a shed n didnt cumfrum no furner. hellno.

                1. RESPECT MAH SOVEREIGNTAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!1

      3. “In any event, if deportation is impossible and de facto amnesty already exists… what’s our incentive for “immigration reform”, again?”

        Exactly. The nation is an ideal place for undocumented aliens to settle in, for one reason or another. With the government taking care of illegal immigrants and amnesty always possibility, there’s real incentive to reform legal immigration.

        If I learned anything from how commentators debate immigration here is that not even libertarians are immune to placing certain groups on a pedestal and engage in name calling. Do you understand what true “xenophobia” is?

        FYI, when I discuss libertarian ideas with fobbish kids, they’ll sometimes jest that I’m too “White” or “Americanized”. Just as some of you might call me “nativisit” even though I have genuine concerns over what will happen to this country if it’s flooded by immigrants who have not abandoned their motherland’s old world ways.

        A world without borders where people are free to come and go isn’t without some appeal. But that comes with certain realities and consequences.

        1. Just as some of you might call me “nativisit” even though I have genuine concerns over what will happen to this country if it’s flooded by immigrants who have not abandoned their motherland’s old world ways.

          Um, is that sentence supposed to show you aren’t a nativist? Because it reads like a pretty good definition of nativism to me.

          A world without borders where people are free to come and go isn’t without some appeal. But that comes with certain realities and consequences.

          Yes, freedom has consequences. Non-freedom also has consequences. Your statement is meaningless.

          1. Nativists want to stop all immigration (legal or otherwise) and either deport or at least lower the status of all previous immigrants already in the country. So, no, as far as I know no one here is a nativist.

            1. A nativist is someone who thinks native people should have more rights than foreigners. Immigration restriction assumes that an immigrant does not have the same right to move around the country as a native.

              1. That’s not the common definition…and the fact you’re using it as a slur indicates you know it’s not the common definition.

                1. Yeah it is the common definition. First sentence of wikipedia:

                  Nativism is the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants.

                  Your definition, on the other hand is not so much a definition as a list of very specific policy points.

                  1. Second sentence:

                    Nativism typically means opposition to immigration and support of efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and assumptions that they cannot be assimilated.

                    Put that in your taco and eat it.

                    1. And that contradicts what I said how? My definition is broad enough to include both, yous is too specific.

                    2. Your definition is too broad. You’re including people who are not commonly understood as nativists.

                      It would be like me saying that a libertarian is someone who likes liberty.

                    3. I don’t see how it’s broad. Wikipedia agrees with my definition.

                    4. The anonymous individual who typed that into Wikipedia agrees with my definition.

                      Fixed.

                    5. Hey, if you disagree with it, go change it yourself.

                2. And I don’t know why you think I’ve been using it as a slur. I’ve been using it to characterize people who think natives have rights that immigrants don’t, who scream “respect my sovereigntaaah!”

                  1. You don’t know something? What are the odds.

          2. Freedom isn’t worth much if it leads to authoritarianism.

            1. Yup, freedom is slavery, etc. Got it.

        2. NOT A NATIVIST SAYS:

          I have genuine concerns over what will happen to this country if it’s flooded by immigrants who have not abandoned their motherland’s old world ways.

          1. ITS, dumbass. Failure to use apostrophes appropriately is grounds for deportation to somalia

          2. Others have held your sensitive, non-nativist views…

          “The [immigrant] conspirators against our liberties who have been admitted from abroad through the liberality of our institutions, are now organized in every part of the country ? They [immigrants] are already the most powerful and dangerous sect in the country, for they are not confined in their schemes and means like the other sects, to our own borders, but they work with the minds and the funds of all despotic Europe. ? We may sleep, but the enemy is awake; he is straining every nerve to possess himself of our fair land. We must awake, or we are lost. Foundations are attacked, fundamental principles are threatened, interests are put in jeopardy, which throw all the questions which now agitate the councils of the country into the shade. It is Liberty itself that is in danger, not the liberty of a single state, no, nor of the United States, but the liberty of the world.

          Samuel Morse, 1835

          Of course, he was talking about the filthy Irish

          One of the people he considered part of this ‘invading army’ was my great-great grandfather, who fought with the army of the potomac in the civil war, for the nation that despised him

          1. oh shit, you use teh apostrophe right

            i will go eat a crow now

      4. Actually that is the plan. they want to kick out all “illegal” immigrants then close the door to legal immigration. None of the GOP or conservative say anything about reforming and removing barriers to legal immigration.

  27. If NR is insufficiently pro-amnesty, maybe you need to examine your beliefs.

    Or import a couple dozen million more anti-libertarian people. That’ll show ’em!

    1. See above thread for definitive proof of your retardation.

      1. Boy, you’re on a roll.

  28. “Apart from calling them hostile, anti-capitalist, welfare-sucking poors, NR’s editorial really insults Americans of Spanish-speaking descent by denying them the basic agency of independent political action.”

    That’s only an insult if it is a statistically inaccurate description of the demographic group commonly referred to as “Hispanic”. As to denying people independent political agency, that is the base assumption of any political appeal based on group identity. Anyone who suggests, say, that embracing open borders is the way to appeal to Hispanics as Hispanics is denying individual Hispanics independent political agency.

    1. Exactly. Welch devotes a lot of effort to throwing ad-hominems and rewording NR’s statement to sound offensive, but he doesn’t actually say which of their claimed facts are wrong.

    2. Anyone who suggests, say, that embracing open borders is the way to appeal to Hispanics as Hispanics is denying individual Hispanics independent political agency.

      OH SNAP!

  29. You can’t fight facts. Libertarians have a religious belief that everyone supports free markets. Well, sad to say, Hispanics don’t. Just look at their welfare use. Immigrant or U.S. citizen, they are overwhelmingly dependant on welfare and support high taxes and high regulation. Hispanics are just enenmies of economic freedom. That is just a fact that libertarians just can’t understand. It is like a religious belief. No amount of facts will dissuade them.

    1. Libertarians have a religious belief that everyone supports free markets.

      No they don’t. You seem to think that libertarians can only argue for the rights of people they agree with. That is stupid.

      1. They can argue for anything they want.
        The problem is that they’re arguing for the rights of people who by and large don’t reciprocate.

        If your exercise of your right to walk across the border is likely to be followed by you attempting to strip me of rights I currently enjoy, I’d have to be pretty damned stupid to allow you to exercise that right.

        1. You know, that’s a great argument. I’ll remember the next time other civil rights come up: “Why should I care about their right to free speech? They wouldn’t care about mine!” A nice, morally vacant argument, that’s what we need more of in this country. It isn’t a principle if it only applies to people you like.

          1. The net result of unlimited immigration will be reduced rights for Americans. Therefore I’m against it.

            I can see why that may seem “morally vacant” to someone with your simplistic world-view.

            1. I can see why “Rights for me but not for thee” wouldn’t seem simplistic to someone like you.

      2. heller| 1.31.13 @ 7:39PM |#

        “”Libertarians have a religious belief that everyone supports free markets.””

        No they don’t. You seem to think that libertarians can only argue for the rights of people they agree with. That is stupid.

        I hit this same point above w/ John

        it was straight-up = do you believe in the principle, or simply the *privilege* of some?

        it does roundly identify the ‘LINO’ (libertarian in name only) instinct in the nativist argument, which seems to be ‘our ideas can only survive in a STRICTLY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT’

        which i personally see as an ignorance of history, and a profound lack of faith in individuals other than themselves given similar ‘freedoms’

        (how can you call them that when they’ve already sacrificed any idea of equality of opportunity under the law?)

    2. In addition to what heller said, I find this argument hilarious because its proponents act as if white Americans are solid libertarians desperately trying to defend freedom from the brown hordes. In terms of actual effects, white support for freedom is at best marginally better than Hispanic. Why is everyone acting as if the GOP is a bastion of libertarianism? If people are going to argue that it’s impossible to change the political views of a group, libertarians just might as well give up.

      In addition, it’s blatantly false to say that Hispanics are “overwhelmingly dependant on welfare.” They constitute 15.7% of the welfare population and about 16% of the general population. There are strong restrictions on welfare use by immigrants, but among those who are eligible for Medicaid, only 30% sign up compared to 57% of native born citizens.

      Gary Johnson was elected governor in the most Hispanic state in the country, New Mexico. He got 6% of the Hispanic vote there as a third party candidate for president, compared to just 3% of the white vote.

  30. They constitute 15.7% of the welfare population and about 16% of the general population.

    Link? I just looked up the TANF data (here) and the last year reported was 2010. white 31.8%, black 31.9%, hispanic 30%

    1. This is the website I got those stats from. Admittedly, there’s no link to the HHS, Commerce, or CATO data they cite, so it’s not clear what exactly they’re talking about when they say “welfare.” Personally, I’m not one of those people that’s only talking about TANF when I think about welfare, as it’s actually a fairly small portion of social spending.

      http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

      46% of TANF households have no adult recipients (the money is just for the kids). I would assume it’s even higher among Hispanics, as there are probably a lot of ineligible parents with eligible citizen kids.

      However, far more people are on food stamps, for example, than TANF. Using their statistics, and counting just people whose race/ethnicity was known (18.9% were of unknown race), Hispanics form 12.3% of SNAP recipients, less than their share of the population. Immigrants form 7% (less than their 12.5% of the population). Another 9% of SNAP recipients are children of immmigrants. I don’t know what percentage of the population they are.

      http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/ME…..istics.pdf

      It would be interesting to see a breakdown including all programs, including SS and Medicare

      1. Thanks. The SNAP people need to farm out their stats to the TANF people.

        It would be interesting to see a breakdown including all programs, including SS and Medicare

        Agreed. I just spent 30 minutes looking for any demographic data for local programs to no avail. The first google page for “hispanic housing assistance” has a link to a banal 1996 Chicago Tribune editorial.

        http://anepigone.blogspot.com/…..tures.html

        That’s a chart of total per capita federal welfare by state in 2005. The correlations are surprisingly weak.

  31. “Stupid statement.”

    “Yeah, because stupid opposite statement.”

    Man, the level of discourse here has really gone downhill.

  32. And furthermore, while everyone’s been arguing about the color of the drapes, the house has burned down around us.

    1. Wow, you are so insightful. Please, tell me more.

  33. I wondered what the hell had this thread up to almost 400 comments; a John and T O N Y tag TEAM.

  34. I cannot understand, nor accept how and why , at this late date in history, it is 2013 after all, why women continue to have babies and more and more children knowing full well that they cannot financially support these children.. the “father’ walks away leaving these single unwed “mothers” to slip into the system where the benefits flow endlessly contributing to the tenuous bankrupt nation that we have become…What about “social justice” and social responsibility at the the other end? The other end is when the woman (and the man) have that night of sex with no concerns or precautions or benefit of marriage vows, nothing..and oops 9 months later a baby pops out and another year or so later another, and then another plops out.. and the the state is left to pay for the care and services to mother and brood..Where is the personal responsibility of those who act in this immoral manner? Where is the social justice for the middle class and more affluent classes who are then left to pay the bills for this mindless behavior. Proof is we have 7 billion on the planet now and this is not sustainable. And yet more and more babies are mindlessly plopped out..Where is the social justice here to those on the paying end??

  35. 70% of Hispanics voted for the most welfare profligate, business antagonistic, regulation-gone-nuts President since FDR.

    And the Republican Party somehow can overcome this overwhelming tendency and turn it to their electoral advantage, um, how, exactly?

    Why, encouraging the creation of more 70% voters! What they lose in voters, they make up in volume or something.

    Are the Underpants Gnomes involved?

    There is the real world, and then there is doctrinaire libertarianism.

    1. “There is the real world, and then there is doctrinaire libertarianism.”

      Cause we all know it’s so libertarian to value GOP electoral success over principles

      1. Welch is criticizing an NR article that was responding to the electoral utilitarian argument for the GOP changing its positions on immigration reform, not the argument based on libertarian philosophy. If you are offended by the context of a conversation, it might behoove not to join it.

  36. Didn’t 70% of women vote for Obama as well?

    Should we discourage women from moving to the US, as well as Hispanics?

    If not, why?

    1. RESPECT MAH SOVEREIGNTAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!1

  37. “Apart from calling them hostile, anti-capitalist, welfare-sucking poors, …”

    IOW, National Review was correct and you want to kill the messenger. That’s real classy ‘n’ intellectual ‘n’ stuff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.