Rand Paul

Rand Paul Defends Principle of Immigration Amnesty: "Do They Want us to Put Them in Concentration Camps?"


Rand Paul talks some sense that all his fellow Republicans should face on the bugaboo of "amnesty" for those lawbreaking illegal immigrants already in the United States, reported via Mediaite:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) may have voted against the Senate's "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill last week, but he seemingly does not count himself among the conservative critics of the bill who oppose any and all forms of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants currently living inside the United States.

In an interview with WNDtv, Sen. Paul took on the critics of so-called "amnesty" who oppose efforts to "normalize" illegal immigrants and absorb them into the United States. "Let's get them work visas, let's normalize them, let's make them taxpayers," he said of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing within the states.

"They're not going home," Paul said, adding that even the most vocal opponents of so-called "amnesty" seem to recognize this fact. "Are they for sending these people home? Do they want us to put them in concentration camps, on buses, and send them back home? I don't think anyone's proposing that."

Mike Riggs earlier today had a great roundup of the liberty issues implicated in this round of "immigration reform."

NEXT: Philly Activists End Fast over School Cuts

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. Free movement of people, goods, and ideas?

    Who the fuck does this guy think he is?!

    1. Is it wrong that if you detached the quote from the person, Obama would probably have the CIA/NSA/FBI/every other alphabet soup agency trying to hunt him down ala Snowden?

    2. free votes, free welfare, free healthcare. i’m sure our founders has all of that. we should really start by removing borders, because ‘two wrong doesn’t make a right’ sure, if you remove all aspect of practicality and detach yourself from reality. how practical? i don’t know, like having the remaining aspect of our constitution, whatever little is left, and entire system of a constitutional republic entirely scratched? that practical enough?

  2. “Let’s get them work visas, let’s normalize them, let’s make them taxpayers,” he said of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing within the states.

    The selection of the term “taxpayer” rather than citizen is telling.

    Almost everyone in support of the current bill has been calling for a path to citizenship for a group of people defined exclusively by their flouting of immigration laws of the country they are evidently to be incorporated into. It does not strike me that such a group desires (or deserves) the power to vote for laws to impose on their fellows.

    1. “Taxpayer”, while unfortunately placing the focus on an immigrant’s worth to the government in control of the region, at least acknowledges that said immigrants are here to work rather than dictate terms to the population.

      Placing the emphasis on *workers* would be more respectful both of the immigrants’ reason for being here as well as of the franchise.

    2. Plus, given SNAP, subsidized housing, other welfare, unpaid medical treatment, vast IRS tax refund fraud, and more, it’s possibly a stretch to consider them taxpayers in a net sense.

      1. They’re better than your “god-fearin’ American” neighbor in that regard. They have these things called “studies” you might want to read up on.

        1. 1) Only because they are not currently legal. Legal immigrants have access to many more welfare programs than illegal (especially at the state level); Milton Friedman had a column that made some great points in this regard.

          2) As far as studies go immigrants are “better” when adjusted for income and age but worse when not, since more likely than not an economic migrant is going to be much poorer than the average American. It’s really quite irrelevant whether current citizens are “better” or “worse” in this regard, however: few libertarians who make objections to immigration on the grounds of welfare and such would be in favor of accepting uneducated British welfare class immigrants with similar characteristics to the American welfare class; the question to such libertarians is how to construct an immigration/welfare system which will draw as few of such immigrants as possible and as many immigrants as can be accommodated who will not become burdens to the public.

          1. The question to this libertarian is whether we are going to restrict freedom of labor, freedom of association and freedom of movement based on probabilities and the Precautionary Principle.

            Answer: Nope.

            1. That’s fine. I’m not much of a libertarian (even if I am one); I can say that libertarians will find that the Law of Unintended Consequences doesn’t play favorites and that the economic and moral virtues of free movement of peoples historically do not translate easily to either social or political benefits.

              1. So, in other words, yes, you want to restrict my freedom of association based on some vague bullshit like Social Welfare or some other sort of voodoo.

                1. Evidently you lack reading comprehension — my condolences.

                  1. Hm, I’m reading your post over and again, and it seems my interpretation still stands. Further yet, you’ve done nothing to allay that interpretation whatsoever.

                    1. Since you appear to be having difficulty, let me help:

                      1) I am not in favor of extending voting privileges on a whim. As I hope you are aware, voting privileges are not connected to freedom of movement in the slightest; in fact they do not fall under negative rights at all.

                      2) I don’t believe that supporters of the current bill are being forthright or intellectually honest in their description of either the migrant population or the consequences of passing their favored bill, given current law and the totality of what is in the bill. This is particularly the case when it comes to optimism about non-integrated Latin American immigrants as a voting group in the current system.

                      Given that I have already expressed a preference for economic migration and strong opposition to extension of voting rights, I would think that one might interpret my comments in that light.

                  2. NK understands what you are saying better than you do. You aren’t honest TIT.

              2. “I’m not much of a libertarian ”

                I can agree with you on that.

                1. Fuck off, racist scum.

                  1. My goodness, such anger, and when someone agrees with something you said!

    3. Except – most of the are *already* taxpayers. They’re just not tax *consumers*.

      1. Yes; Friedman made that point wrt illegal immigration, as well.

        1. So they are all tax frauds as well? I don’t follow.

          Why/how would an illegal, excuse me “undocumented”..person pay taxes? Employers don’t bother to check even ID but they pay the taxes and workers comp? Or does the…undocumented file their 1040-EZ form without any 10-99? Filing under a false name/number would be a felony for those of us unfortunate enough to be born here. They are here illegally, and notifying their presence should tip of the feds but it is all part of their law abiding nature? Horsehockey.

          1. I might have missed something in your reply. I thought you were making reference to the well-known fact that illegals don’t have access to many public services due to their legal status but that they also tend to pay taxes either through fraudulent means (such as SS fraud) or through paying for items that have sales tax.

            FWIW, I agree that being unable or unwilling to follow rudimentary laws in a host country makes you ill-equipped to be a good voter in the future.

            1. “I agree that being unable or unwilling to follow rudimentary laws in a host country makes you ill-equipped to be a good voter in the future.”

              So no vote for those pot smokers, eh?

          2. “Why/how would an illegal, excuse me “undocumented”..person pay taxes?”

            Um… sales taxes?

            “They are here illegally, and notifying their presence should tip of the feds but it is all part of their law abiding nature?”

            Yeah, those law abidin’ founders would be spinnin’ in their graves.

          3. Illegal aliens get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers so that they can pay taxes. Unfortunately, that also allows widespread scamming of tens of millions in refunds.

            Another scam is to claim lots of dependent children who may not exist or who may live in Mexico.

  3. A bit of a straw man. How about we compromise by deporting the illegal alien criminals and gangsters and welfare recipients? Of course, all this “sanctuary city” nonsense gets in the way, so the feds should cut off all federal aid to any city with such a policy. Not that it’ll happen.

    Yeah, I’m not an open borders libertarian.

    1. Yeah, I’m not an open borders libertarian.

      Doesn’t that depends on what is defined by “open borders”?

    2. Same.

      Restrict welfare access to citizens (ideally the safety net would be much smaller, but allowing an immigrant to live on the public weal seriously compounds an already existing problem).

      Deport criminals.

      Make it easy for economic migrants to immigrate to the US.

      Make citizenship more difficult to obtain.

      Those things would fix immigration, IMO.

      1. Funny, I consider myself an open borders person, and I agree with everything you said.

        1. Well, according to Neoliberal Kochtopus, we are advocating restricting “freedom of association.” And in a certain sense we are, but pure libertarianism regarding open borders would doom the US. If we continue bringing in tens of millions of South American peasants who, when they can vote, are reliable anti-libertarian voters (pro big government social conservatives), we are cutting our own throats. From the point of view of the world, the US is Galt’s Gulch, which can’t survive in its intended form if it’s filled with people who don’t believe in its founding principles.

          1. Personally I’m all for making the citizenship test exceptionally difficult.

            1. Have you noticed in recent years that ballots are now in multiple languages? I thought someone had to demonstrate a command of English to be a citizen, and that you had to be a citizen to vote.

              1. Its liberty, not the fate of the US.

                Please do not ever conflate liberty with the fate of the US.

                1. Please do not ever conflate liberty with the fate of the US.

                  If you don’t know the connections, you don’t know much about history.

              2. Oh, brother.

          2. “according to Neoliberal Kochtopus, we are advocating restricting “freedom of association.” And in a certain sense we are”

            Hmm, I can agree with that as well.

    3. Well, you *are* as long as the border is a city, or county, or state, you just balk when it comes to a national border.

      1. Yes. The national border has to be an exception, I think.

        1. Insofar as we maintain the concept of nations as distinct sovereign bodies, then yes the national border will be different than subnational ones. Nevertheless, the presumption should be that people are allowed to enter and leave this nation when, how, and where they please, under the proviso that while within our borders they are subject to our laws.

    4. So you’re not a libertarian?

    5. Open borders is stupid. I’m all for letting in anyone who wants to work and be an American. Open borders would just let in everyone else and probably fewer productive people would want to come in because they don’t want to deal with a culture of criminals and welfare recipients. Incentives, how do they work?

      1. I’m not sure which of the three contradictory points you’re actually trying to make.

  4. All the media will report about his vote against immigration reform is that he voted against immigration reform. Even a Godwin (or Rooseveltwin) won’t spark their journalistic desire to report nuance.

  5. If you don’t support E-verify and the Border Surge you hate brown people.

    1. I don’t support either, but I still get a strong whiff of hate from you regardless.

      1. He who smelt it, dealt it.

    2. So if it weren’t for EV and the border surge, you would support the bill?

      1. I wouldn’t. “Path to citizenship” is fatuous nonsense intended to create a *voting class*, and not a *working class*. This country badly needs an immigration system that forthrightly and unapologetic-ally allows for economic migrants (particularly low-class economic migrants) to immigrate and find themselves employment. AFAICT, that’s exactly what we’re not getting with this bill.

        Dunno about you, but I don’t think that the problem with America is a lack of voters.

        1. Why should I care whether we have more voters or less?

          1. You don’t care about a plan to create more voters who will vote against your principles?

            BTW, I don’t think the country has any sort of shortage of low-skilled, low-class workers. A tighter labor market at the bottom would have several good effects: rising wages, more incentive for automation, less necessity for welfare, etc.

            1. That is not a legitimate government concern or concern for libertarians.

              There is never ever too many workers.

              1. Not true in a welfare state with unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, etc., and in an economy with a decreasing demand for unskilled labor.

            2. OK, enough of this.

              First, no one is talking about automatic citizenship, they are talking about people who have been here for years waiting an additional period of years to become citizens.

              Second, it’s abhorrent in my opinion to condition rights on whether that person is going to vote the way they “should.”

              Third, the argument seems to be that “those immigrants from Latin America are just suspect as potential voters because they A. vote or will vote Democrat or big government B. come from quasi-socialist kleptocracies and/or C. they come from Third World nations with poor education and thus are “peasants” who can’t be counted on to exercise the franchise responsibly. The problem with that is nearly all of that was said word for word about the Irish, the Italians, etc. And many of those groups ended up voting for Reagan, both within a few generations (heck, a significant number of recent immigrants voted for Reagan).

              This is just Nativism.

              1. no one is talking about automatic citizenship, they are talking about people who have been here for years waiting an additional period of years to become citizens.

                Our current immigration system already has a path to citizenship. Why should we include a second pathway to citizenship that applies to only the immigrants that are currently here illegally?

                1. Let me turn this around.

                  Why would a libertarian who thought the current laws that made freedom of movement illegal be against a system that granted amnesty and a path to citizenship to those who have merely violated such laws?

              2. Maybe, but why are the Democrats pushing so hard for it?

                1. Why do the Democrats push for anything? It’s considered to be in their short term interest.

                  Why libertarians should care that any given thing might favor one team over the other in the short term is my question.

              3. nearly all of that was said word for word about the Irish, the Italians, etc.

                Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All cultures aren’t the same, those waves of immigration happened pre-welfare and pre-multiculti diversity mania, there were no revanchist movements among immigrants, and the immigrants weren’t overwhelmingly from one culture (assuming you count Spanish-speaking Central and South America as “one culture”).

                It’s not “nativism” to know what makes American culture strong, and to not want to destroy it. Immigration is a good thing, but it’s always possible to have too much of a good thing.

                1. “pre-multiculti diversity mania”

                  Are you kidding? It was much more common to walk into a neighborhood where, for example, most everyone spoke Italian, read Italian language newspapers, etc. Somehow our nation survived…

        2. It’s a lack of voters with a functional brain that’s the problem.

          1. Functional brains are less a problem than people’s willingness or ability to use them. I’m a little smarter than the average bear, but the first time I voted I didn’t know one shit about what was going on except that I was in the military and Carter’s stunt with the helicopters was a joke.

            That wasn’t a good basis for me to vote, and with a little education about the American system and history under my belt I can now embarrassingly admit that I had no business voting in that election.

            Plenty of Americans and Latinos have brains enough to vote; they just don’t have the knowledge or inclination to figure anything beyond “that guy gives me the warm fuzzies” or “that guy promises free stuff” as a reason to vote for anyone.

            1. Meh… fear of massive immigrant voters is largely overblown. Have you seen the numbers for voter turnout?


              1. They said it would happen in Canada. And then the immigrants largely voted Conservative.

                1. Puerto Rican immigrants in NY vote for the Dem party at ~80% rates and exhibit the same tendencies as American inner-city blacks. Perhaps CA, like Texas, has policies in place which discourage immigrant consumption of welfare services?

                  1. Perhaps CA, like Texas, has policies in place which discourage immigrant consumption of welfare services?

                    Are you kidding? In San Francisco illegal immigrants can not only get various types of welfare, in part because rules aren’t enforced, but we also go very lightly on illegals when they are caught committing crimes. A few years ago a whole family was murdered by an illegal gangbanger who had had several previous encounters with the law, but was never turned over to federal authorities because we are a “sanctuary city.”

                    1. I was referring to Canada, not California.

                      My bad.

                2. I believe Canada has pretty strict rules about who is allowed to immigrate, and has an “Investor Immigrant program” that essentially sells citizenship to the wealthy. They also don’t have millions of Mexican peasants walking into their country.

              2. Obama won his last election with only 39% of the white vote. Where the fuck do you think the other votes came from?

            2. That same situation led me to vote for Ed Clark. Reagan always was just another statist asshole, but he was a good speaker. I admired his speeches while simultaneously hating him.

      2. No

        I’d support a simple renewable/revocable temporary work visa for resident illegals and extending the same to most H1b holders and applicants while eliminating that program entirely.g

        1. That’s surprising. I commented assuming you were more hostile towards “teh immigrantz”.

          1. SIV’s more interested in maligning SIV-defined groups of people based on imagined shared characteristics than he is for closed borders. His is a tribalistic hatred for people who don’t speak about things the way he would like, rather than an actual political opposition to types of policy.

  6. I defend immigration also. It’s just that we don’t need another 1000 page pork laden bill that has almost nothing to do with immigration.

    Sometimes, I feel almost certain that team red and blue intentionally vote against a bill only so that they can then shove it back across the aisle where the other team crams in more pork, and then back across the aisle again, for another pork cram.

    We need some amendments to the constitution and one of them needs to state that no bill can be voted on in congress if it contains anything unrelated to the bill, or any pork, ever. Also, limit bills to 10 pages. And all bills must be posted online, in their final form, for 60 days before a vote. Any amendments, and it’s back up online for 60 more days.

    Also, end career politics. One term of no more than 4 years and you can never run for public office again, or be appointed to any public office again, for the rest of your life.

    Those 2 things right there do a lot towards restoring our liberties.

    1. I’m with you on most of that, but I’d be OK with term limits of twelve years (two Senate terms or six house terms).

      Also: no federal money for anything named after a living politician.

      1. And no laws named after dead children.

      2. I think 12 years is too long. Maybe 6 or 8.

        1. Couple more amendments:

          One body of Congress is assigned by random lot, like we do with jury duty.

          All bills have 2-year sunset clauses. If the standing army needs to be renewed every two years, then so should the rest of government.

        2. Everybody gets 1 week. Drawn by lottery. And of course the Supreme Court should have real time strike-down authority on anything coming out of Congress. And the Censor should have real-time execution authority over any SC justice who approves of anything that is not in accordance with the Constitution.

  7. We need some amendments to the constitution and one of them needs to state that no bill can be voted on in congress if it contains anything unrelated to the bill, or any pork, ever. Also, limit bills to 10 pages. And all bills must be posted online, in their final form, for 60 days before a vote. Any amendments, and it’s back up online for 60 more days.

    Also, end career politics. One term of no more than 4 years and you can never run for public office again, or be appointed to any public office again, for the rest of your life.

    Those 2 things right there do a lot towards restoring our liberties.

    I loled. We both know politicians would find ways around those limits within a few years. The solution is to elect people who are more virtuous.

    1. Then we can just repeal the Constitution, right? I mean, according to your logic, it isn’t doing us any good anyways, so what’s the dif?

      1. To be blunt, the Constitution is a piece of paper, it is only effective if people believe its binding. Considering the directives the federal government has been handing down lately you can tell those in power find the Constitution to be less binding by the day. That said, their is still a large group of people that would punish flagrant violations of the Constitution, so it still has some usefulness, for now.

        The Soviet Union had a constitution, for all the good it did those in the gulag.

    2. The solution is to elect people who are more virtuous

      Most people who seek public office, are not virtuous. And the longer they stay in office, the more corrupt they become.

      Look at the worst members of Congress, like McCain and Feinstein. They have been there forever, and they become more fascist like with each passing year.

    3. As Friedman said: the fallacy of government reform is that you can put unselfish and un-greedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men.

      Electing people that are more virtuous isn’t going to work. We need to limit the powers of the people we elect.

      1. ^THIS^

        And we had better start doing it soon, because Rome is burning, and Congress are manning the fiddles.

      2. Do you have more context to that quote, because their are several ways of interpreting it.

        1. Milton Friedman on Limited Government

          Mr. Friedman: “?it assumes some how that government is a way in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men, but government is an institution, whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men get into a position of controlling them.”

  8. Fine, let them immigrate if jobs and a future is all they want.

    Deny them welfare and voting privileges..after all, they’re only here for a job, right?

    1. Funny thing is, most Latin American immigrants would be 100% in favor of that arrangement.

      It’s the Americanized race/ethnic pimps and Dem party apparatus that would have problems with that arrangement; it’s difficult to make political hay of immigrants who are satisfied and economically well situated.

      1. This bill will make things worse for both immigrants and current citizens. The only parties who will benefit from this are politicians and their cronies, as always.

      2. Exactly.

        The Democrat Pimps have turned California into the shithole it is now after the 1980s Amnesty. Immigrants to them are only one thing: votes. And unfortunately, it seems most current immigrants are highly sympathetic to the leftist economic agenda.

        1. If your theory was correct, TX would also be a hell hole.

          The fact of the matter is that CA is where it is largely due to white unions.

          1. It’s also where it is because CA is much more generous with its benefits and welfare systems towards illegals than is TX. By making citizens of current illegals, states would have to provide much more in terms of benefits to what were previously immigrants than they would have otherwise done; in a sense exporting California’s welfare policies vis a vis immigrants to the rest of the country.

          2. On average, Texas had a stronger commitment to Constitutional values. California, for decades a destination for leftists from other states, managed to drive out a lot of conservatives and import lots of Hispanic immigrants, and the combination has tipped us to a reliably Democratic state.

            1. Not sure how you can single out Hispanic immigrants. Asians voted more heavily for Democratic candidates in 2012 than Hispanics did.

              California and Texas actually have almost identically-sized Hispanic populations (in terms of % of population)

          3. True, but California has an approving “public”, which is overwhelmingly liberal democrat.

            From my little time in Texas, Texicans seem to be alot like first generation Cubans in Miami.

            Texas is becoming a hell hole, one Californian at a time.

            1. And the 1980s Amnesty certainly tilted California fully into the left wing, statist asshole category.

          4. CA’s shittiness has nothing to do with immigration.

    2. Fine by me. I’ve said before, the big issue isn’t citizenship, it’s being able to come here at all. Bills like this are mostly partisan bullshit, not any honest effort to reform jack.

    3. “Fine, let them immigrate if jobs and a future is all they want.”

      Are we keeping birthright citizenship? If so, then OK.

    4. Do you think that the Dems would be trying so hard to get this passed, if they were not convinced that they are gaining a huge new voting bloc? They don’t care how much that costs, after all, it’s the tax payers money, not theirs, that will pay for any government assistance that new immigrants might need.

      1. The issue for me is that you’re essentially ending the American system of immigration in favor of the Euro system:

        To wit, immigrants came here to work, not to get a free ride. Once there is a large established community of Latin American welfarized immigrants, it becomes that much harder for future immigrants from that region to avoid the lure of becoming part of that community — thus doing the same thing to the Latin American expatriate community that was done to American blacks.

        This is not a good thing.

        1. Agreed. I am for immigration, but not for handing out welfare to new immigrants.

          But like I said, the Dems have no problem with spending more of your money.

  9. I have a better idea: why not give “amnesty” to legal immigrants at the same time? Many are taking longer to naturalize than illegals with amnesty. People shouldn’t get punished for going through the legal channels.

    1. They do though. The entire process is a punishment.

  10. Immigration is a great topic to weed the Team Red Fluffers out of the libertarian ranks.

    1. If Texas goes blue because of this bill, your ass will be the first one I’ll kick.

      1. Why should I give a shit if one terrible TEAM loses to another?

        1. No, its the fucking fact that latin american migrants sympathize with leftist economic agendas….and thus vote for democrats.

          1. 1) Is that why most of Latin America is moving towards freer markets?

            2) Not our concern. Social engineering is forbidden.

          2. The collectivist is strong in this one. Because we all know “latin American migrants”, who often risk their life to flee quasi-socialist, vote for Democrats because it’s in their blood or culture or something.

            It has nothing to do with, I don’t know, Republicans and Tea Party types demonizing Hispanic immigrants so much. Nope, it’s just their collective and unalterable love for socialism.

    2. Perhaps, but don’t you think that libertarians in favor of the current bill given the circumstances should be honest about the probable consequences? I am not going to criticize someone for holding to a set of principles, but I do find the pie-in-the-sky articles emanating from those in favor of this bill to be a bit much, as well as the brain-killing characterization of long-time libertarians as “Team Red fluffers”.

      1. ^This^

      2. Milton Friedman would be a “Team Red fluffer” according to current day Reason.

        1. Milton Friedman? That’s nothing – so would Murray Rothbard himself. Ever notice how leftists have a way of infiltrating movements, and then drumming out their founders as “not true Scotsmen”?

          You ought to read some communist propaganda from the ’30s – they didn’t hate their country, no sir! They just wanted “to make it live up to the ideals of it’s founders”.

      3. When libertarians decide to ignore consequences is when I depart from most libertarians. You know it’s that kind of issue when they have to resort to name calling to anyone who wants to ask what is likely to happen.

        1. How about the consequences of e-verify?

          How about the consequences of every natural born American having to carry a bio=metric SS card?

          How about the consequences of making ICE a bigger, more intrusive bureaucracy?

          How about ignoring the fact that our founding principles do not include nativist restriction upon the absolute right of travel?

          More tyranny. Will you take up arms in defense of the proposition that nation states, and not individuals, dictate the parameters of an individual’s right to travel?

          1. Now these are all things that should be of concern to those who value liberty. The immigration reform bill has had the Alabama anti-immigrant, LE increasing stuff folded into it.

          2. Note that all of the things you list happened because of (or are a response to) massive amounts of illegal immigration.

            1. This is like saying we should oppose drug legalization because the government has grown in response to fighting drug use.

            2. But they’re in the Senate bill.

    3. Oh, when you lose elections, it’s so adorable.

    4. Yeah, those “Team Red Fluffers” like Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. Yup, real Team Red Fluffers there.

  11. This makes me very happy. Unfortunately, Rand will be made to suffer somewhat by the asshats that won’t countenance anything kind for Brown Foreign People. Rand should just skip pandering to them and emphasize where he gets along. Budget cuts and stuff.

    1. good. Maybe Rand will wise up and realize he’s trying to pander to a party that doesn’t want to listen to him

  12. Fuck you, enforce the law.

    1. Do you feel this way about pot smoking, or failure to pay the minimum wage?

      Why so much ardor to “enforce the law” in this case of libertarian principles being violated than in these others?

      The person above seems to be on to something, immigration is a dandy tool to peel off the Tea Party types who might be reading Hayek but are still thinking like Jim Sessions.

      1. So, I guess we can consider Ron Paul one of those “Tea Party types who might be reading Hayek but are still thinking like Jim Sessions”?

      2. And by the way, there’s nothing necessarily unlibertarian about thinking that even bad laws should be enforced, that the proper venue to get rid of them is legislation or litigation. The rule of law isn’t something many libertarians I know take particularly lightly.

        1. The cornerstone of libertarianism is the NAP. Thus, enforcement of any “bad law” is contrary to the rule of law.

          There can be no rule of law if the state makes the rules.

  13. Fuck you, enforce the law.

  14. Peter Schaeffer schools Tyler Cowan on immigration economics.

    Always a pleasure to see a cosmotarian get pwned, especially in his own backyard…

  15. Arizona demonstrated how to deal with illegals in our country. No concentration camps, no buses, no door-to-door roundups. Instead they enforced the law and went after employers. They’ve had dramatic success even with Eric Holder, Obama, and the courts trying to thwart them at every step of the process.

    Unfortunately the GOP is owned by these same immigrant-exploiting employers and I guess so is Rand Paul. I suspect I’ll sit out the next election again. I’ll not vote for my country’s destruction.

    1. I suspect I’ll sit out the next election again.

      Thank god.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.