Immigration

Restrictionists Going Nuts Over Immigration Reform, Again.

|

The House GOP, it appears, is finally getting serious about doing something lame (as Ed Krayewski explained this morning) to reform our inhumane and irrational immigration system. So, naturally, restrictionists have started spilling vast quantities of fake bile and warning GOP leaders of dire consequences if they don't cease and desist.

The peerless (thank god) Ann Coulter got the ball rolling. She didn't take the tack of Republican "pussies" who limit their opposition to illegal immigration. No siree. She wants a war on all immigrants – even the good, high skilled variety – lest they ruin America forever. How? By voting against Republicans. "Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party," she harrumphs.

Setting aside the fact that 45-plus percent of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush, what's bad for Republicans is ipso facto bad for America? Got it.

Famous nativist and Zullu-basher Pat Buchanan chimed in on Laura Ingraham's radio show that House Speaker John Boehner would sing his "last hurrah" if he pushed for reform. "You will have a war inside the Republican party — a Balkan war — this year," he snorted.

So the way for Republicans to maintain peace is by continuing a war on immigrants? Got that too.

Implacable immigration foe Sen. Jeff Sessions accused the House's leadership of – horror of horrors! – consulting with "Democrat activists" before their own obstructionist members in their  "rush to pass an immigration bill."

 Rush.

A reform effort that has been in the works since at least 2006 (when George W. Bush first proposed) is a rush job? The good senator obviously has a watch in geological time. But, whatever.

Meanwhile, the National Review predictably declared any reform effort that did not first erect a Berlin Wall on the Rio Grande as a "fraud" on the American people.

Less predictably, however, the Weekly Standard, which used to once have sensible views on immigration, seconded that sentiment claiming that reformers were playing "skeptics for fools" by even considering any form of legalization before the borders are sealed.

Such pre-emptive biliousness against reforms has worked well for restrictionists in the past. But how long can they go on without getting acid reflux?

My pieces on how Republicans can stay the party of limited government and still win minorities a la Canada's Tory Party here and here.

Post Script: For a deeper discussion of each and every tired argument that restrictionists are trotting out for the nth time, please buy Reason's immigration e-book, Humane and Pro-Growth: Reason's Guide to Immigration Reform, for the bargain price of $2.99.

NEXT: Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber

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. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we don’t agree with you, we’re racist. I can get this treatment on MSNBC.

      1. It was some guy. He has a show on a Faux news substation so polite society doesn’t pay any attention to him…

    1. Our immigration laws have worked for 250 years until the government stopped obeying the law. They have intentionally monkey-wrenched the system to bring in slave labor. 30,000,000 uneducated, poor, law breakers are not going to be a burden on law-abiding taxpayers, how?

  2. Just wait until you see the “reforms” Congress shits out.

    1. You won’t be able to get a job legally unless you are the government’s list. But Shika will love it anyway.

      1. I really think she just wants a cheap maid.

        1. IS she married? Maybe she wants a cheap nanny.

    2. So long as the vote democrat they’re not going to give a rats ass what happens. remember, they are immune from the laws they make for us peons.

  3. Another immigration bill where the open borders types get millions of new immigrants and in return give nothing toward enforcement. And anything put down on paper as enforcement will be attacked before the ink is dry.

    1. Let’s make a rule that says your freedom of movement should be restricted based on which side of an imaginary line you were born on, and then devote tons of resources to enforcing that rule. Now that’s liberty.

      1. So you don’t believe in property rights?

        1. Of course he does. That’s why he wants to secure property owners’ right to invite people on their property regardless of where they were born.

          1. But what about other peoples property rights. Unless you live on the border you have to envolve others inside the US and unless these people are traveling between two properties next to each other then other property owners are involved.

            Unless you want to use the socialist US road system..

            And what happens to the people the owner invites after the owner no longer wants them on their property?

            1. Unless you want to use the socialist US road system.

              What a great argument: The government provides free X. Therefore all individual rights are abrogated if they use X.

              Like this: The Libertarian Party uses the socialist USPS. Therefore, libertarianism is wrong.

              1. But how do you get your “free movement” of people when you don’t have a socialist road network?

                Or for that matter how does the Libertarian Party get its free movement of mail without the USPS and stealing some stamps.

                1. Or for that matter how does the Libertarian Party get its free movement of mail without the USPS and stealing some stamps.

                  UPS and Fed Ex? Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company? Is this really the argument you want to go with?

                  1. It is exactly the argument I want to go with. The LP doesn’t send me overnight packages. They send me first class mail — which it is illegal to send by any means except the USPS.

                    Therefore the LP are apparently a bunch of rights violators.

                2. Do you really not know what “free” means?

                3. Do you really not know what “free” means?

              2. Some imaginary lines are less imaginary than others.

            2. “Public” roads actually do fit in perfectly well with non-socialist common law property rights. It is the government’s maintenance of the roads that is socialist.

              1. And those ‘Public’ roads did not allow unlimted use by anyone especially by those outside of the common law agreement.

                You and your neighbor might use the road with little restrictions but the guy in the next valley would less rights.

                1. Not really. Property ownership depends largely on who uses the property. If ‘everyone’ is notoriously using the road without anyone telling them they can’t, then there is a good common law argument for saying ‘everyone’ rather than ‘someone’ owns the road. Most early American roads formed sporadically this way.

                2. Huh? Common law rights of way were exactly that. Anyone could travel them. After all, the ability for people to get to a property is a necessary component of the bundle of rights over that property.

                  DRaS is exactly correct. The government has a semi-legitimate authority to improve a right of way and even charge for the improvement. But it has no legitimate authority to bar individuals from using it.

                3. Furthermore, property developers voluntarily grant easements “to the public” within subdivided land. This is because it is understood that “the public” needs to travel between properties to get to specific properties, especially commercial properties.

          2. Yep…if I want to invite a non-US Citizen to come into my house, or give them my money to do mutually agreed upon work, I don’t really see what business the US Government has to interfere in that.

            1. it’s when that non-citizen leaves your house that the govt becomes interested. It’s not like the US is unique in this regard.

              1. Uh, no. The government tends to get involved in both of these situations.

            2. How did this non-Citzen get to your house?

                1. So where are these free market roads which allow unrestricted travel?

                  1. 1. Government eliminates a market by providing a good or service itself.

                    2. Anyone using that good or service must then abide by government rules.

                    3. There is no right to free migration.

                    QED

      2. Wait, you forgot to add in some bleating about welfare and shit. As if freedom of movement should be subject to the existence of repulsive socialist policies.

      3. Freedom to gambol?

      4. when the rest of the world adopts your freedom of movement platform, I’ll be more inclined to listen. Till then, borders exist and they are hardly imaginary, though you can try out your theory at any number of locations.

        1. Or how about we just respect freedom and liberty even though people in the rest of the World refuse to do so?

          I pitched a tent once half in Canada and half in the USA. I made it through the night without incident.

          1. straddling the border in a tent, totally like throwing open the borders and letting in anyone any time for any reason. No second or third order effects will occur. Because thom once camped out.

            1. No second or third order effects will occur.

              We know what the effects will be: a massive increase in prosperity.

              1. a massive increase in prosperity

                because having who knows how many illegals here has done that already? You would think the result would be a smaller welfare state.

                1. Yeah, clearly the illegals are at fault for America’s economic condition.

                2. because having who knows how many illegals here has done that already?

                  Yes they have. Please see ‘Texas’.

                  Immigration is always good.

        2. “when the rest of the world adopts the a laissez faire free market, I’ll be more inclined to listen.”

          1. goalposts getting heavy yet?

            1. That’s not anything resembling a shifting of the goalposts. It’s a legitimate response to your inane statement.

              1. borders vs. economic systems. How are those things related? If you find borders a random, imaginary thing, try it out on the border of your choice.

                1. The notion that because the rest of the world does something means we have to do it is just as applicable to economic systems.

        3. IOW: we have to be stupid as long as the rest of the world is stupid. I guess you’re against ending drug prohibition as long as the rest of the world hasn’t?

    2. We already spend BILLIONS to indulge your terror at the prospect of people crossing a border. Restrictionists are such entitled babies.

  4. Maybe we could have a few posts about…I don’t know…what’s IN the bill?

    1. They don’t have a bill so nobody knows what will be in it. So they just keep pushing a slogan, ‘”Comprehensive Immigration Reform”.

      They have to pass it before they know what is in it.

  5. Shikha, Here’s the problem. You constantly conflate opposition to immigration reform with nativism. It is possible to oppose our current system and its reform and NOT hate the brown people.

    1. It is possible to oppose our current system and its reform and NOT hate the brown people.

      No it’s not!

      If you don’t want open borders then you hate brown people!

      If you criticize Saint Lincoln then you hate black people!

      If you think marriage is between a man and a woman then you hate gay people!

      If you don’t like Obamacare then you hate sick people!

      If you oppose the welfare state then you hate poor people!

      Hate is the only explanation for anything!

    2. Libertarians lapse into the same rhetoric they attack Democrats for when the issue of immigration arises. Anyone who points out that our completely unsustainable welfare system will become worse if we allowed unlimited immigration is pilloried as a ‘racist.’

      Example:

      Famous nativist and Zullu-basher Pat Buchanan chimed in on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that House Speaker John Boehner would sing his “last hurrah” if he pushed for reform. “You will have a war inside the Republican party ? a Balkan war ? this year,” he snorted.

      The only examples Dalmia quotes in this piece are known kooks like Anne Coulter and Pat Buchanan who she can easily use to tar any opposition as nativists. When she cites National Review and Weekly Standard she doesn’t bother actually quoting or refuting any of their arguments, probably because those arguments are less racist and more reasonable than the insanities spouted by Coulter and Buchanan.

      It’s funny that Reason ran a good article today criticizing leftists for calling all opposition racist and then implied the same thing in regards to critics of this reform bill.

      1. Anyone who points out that our completely unsustainable welfare system will become worse if we allowed unlimited immigration is pilloried as a ‘racist.’

        curiously, no one is pilloried as being wrong. Almost sounds like the libertarian version of the feelz.

      2. our completely unsustainable welfare system will become worse if we allowed unlimited immigration is pilloried as a ‘racist.

        Okay we’ll just call you ‘wrong’ then.

        1. We must protect the welfare state in order to destroy it.

          1. And don’t even think about putting a firewall around welfare! WALLS ARE ONLY FOR IMMIGRANTS NOT LEECHES.

      3. “our completely unsustainable welfare system will become worse if we allowed unlimited immigration”

        A few things here wrong with this

        – why is reform of the welfare system somehow in any way tied to immigration policy?

        – who is using the term ‘unlimited’ except the ‘restritionists’?

        I’d simply point out that the status-quo sucks. Everyone pretty much agrees about that. Ergo, everyone wants “reform” of one kind or another.

        Some want reform which strips down the utterly failed ‘police state’ elements of our policy, and makes a path to legal work easier, and the process of gaining citizenship more transparent.

        i.e. – end the shadow-system. Create a category of non-citizens which can work here.

        Others want to double down on the police state, go for higher penalties, more deportation, a false sense of ‘security’, and reinforce the difficulties inherent in trying to come here legally.

        I don’t think anyone advocates “Limitless” anything. the assumption that reforming our already-failed system results in a NEW tidal wave of people who hadn’t already come here… seems a little ridiculous. It seems similar to those who say ‘legalizing weed means = Everyone will do heroin sooner!’

    3. She didn’t accuse everyone opposed to it as being racist – in fact, her first sentence is pretty critical of the exact proposal – she accused Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Jeff Sessions of being restrictionists. I don’t disagree with her assessment of any of those people in that regard. And to be honest, all three of those people are probably racist, and I’m not one to level that accusation freely.

      1. She didn’t accuse everyone opposed to it as being racist and

        she accused Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Jeff Sessions of being restrictionists.

        Is the shift from racist to restrictionist a typo on your part or do you view the two words as the same?

        1. What? No – the shift is exactly my point. Read my comment again – I’m saying she didn’t call them racist, she called them restrictionists.

          1. Ah okay. My mistake.

      2. It is telling that she didn’t bother refuting any actual arguments against immigration. She strung together a series of ad hominems against anyone who disagrees with her position.

        She didn’t even quote National Review or the Weekly Standard – she just called them insane restrictionists without meeting or refuting any of their arguments.

        This is the type of ‘OH, MY FEELINGS!’ article that I would attack if a nitwit progs at TNR or The Nation wrote it. Epi said he can’t understand why libertarians could be against freedom of movement. Well, I can’t understand how libertarians can accept arguments like this which they’d reject out of hand if they were coming from the left.

        1. I agree that this wasn’t a very substantive article

          1. May I recommend Reason’s immigration e-book that I edited for the bargain price of $2.99 for a refutation of each and every “argument” of GOP restrictionists (no, I did not call them racist)? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi…..magazineA/

      3. come on, man. She created a new -ist hammer with which to bash opponents.

  6. Not sure why the Republicans are trying to do anything. Politically, the world knows that the Democrats want to find a way to get poor immigrants an opportunity to vote for them. The GOP naturally wants to block that. Doing nothing to amnesty illegals serves that purpose for now.

    Once they take over Congress, they can do whatever it is they think needs doing, though I bet it’s a lot less than the things they’re saying now.

    1. The Republicans are greedy fucks who are on the take from the various business interests who support this. If it destroys the party and divides the Right for t he next decade, they don’t care. They will get theirs.

    2. I don’t know that the GOP “naturally wants to block” what its benefactors at the Chamber of Commerce want. Sure, they want to thwart Dem goals but their donors have goals, too.

      1. Illegals as employees, good. Illegals as voters, bad. Also, though I think this is more rhetorical than a big issue for them, illegals as welfare recipients, bad.

  7. so the new word is “restrictionists.” Whew. I was worried for a second that there would just be a rehash of the old, tired -isms.

    1. I thought she’d go with something hyphenated that had deniers at the end. Gambol-deniers?

    2. “Restrictionistism”

  8. From Coulter:

    “That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including — amazingly — 64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).”

    That is curious given the way Asians are discriminated against in college admissions.

  9. I’m still failing to understand how one of the most primary liberties–freedom of movement–is hated on by so many supposed lovers of liberty. And I don’t want to hear idiotic bullshit about welfare and shit. Bad policies do not change fundamental liberties. If they did, that would be an excuse to take away every single fundamental liberty, because there are bad policies for every single one of them.

    1. Jerbs! They take away our jerbs! Those jerbs are ours! They belong to us, and these immigrants are stealing them!

      1. No, but they will vote for politicians who promise them more free shit. We know this because that’s what immigrant do historically.

        1. We can apply this logic to groups within the country as well!

        2. How does that make them any different than anyone else? Voting for free shit is rational.

        3. I’m sorry, but I don’t base my commitment to liberty based on how people might theoretically vote. I’m not going to scuttle my principles in that way.

          1. But what if liberty resulted in direct harm to you in the form of greatly reducing your job prospects, would you vote principle then? Even if you did, would you understand why maybe someone might not be as noble as you?

            Mass immigration is a bad deal for a lot of people who already live here. It isn’t for the people who write for Reason and probably isn’t for you. Are they immoral for voting their interests or are you and Reason immoral for expecting them to sacrifice for the greater good?

            1. Look, I realize you will probably call me extreme for this, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about theoretical results (which we are both speculating about at this point). I care about my own personal morality, and being sincere to it. So, since I believe that people have a right to move about as they wish, that’s where I’m going to stand on it. I will not allow the distortion of socialist policies or just ugly human bullshit to get in the way of that.

              1. I don’t think you are extreme. You are the only person on this board who is honest, along with probably Nikki. You freely admit you are an anarchist and don’t recognize national governments. Going from that premise, immigration really is an infringement on freedom of movement and immoral regardless of how great its effects.

                I am just not an anarchist and think nation states are alright and am thus a bit more practical about it. But you and I disagree about the legitimacy of nation states not really immigration.

                1. I’m glad you’re able to see where I’m coming from. I don’t just not recognize national government, I don’t recognize any legitimate authority (that isn’t 100% voluntarily engaged with) of any kind. Therefore the restricting of people’s movement is pretty horrific to me.

                  1. I’m glad you’re able to see where I’m coming from. I don’t just not recognize national government, I don’t recognize any legitimate authority (that isn’t 100% voluntarily engaged with) of any kind. Therefore the restricting of people’s movement is pretty horrific to me.

                    What if the people who are coming here are known criminals, carry serious diseases, or are agents of a foreign power?

                    Hell, why not just let foreign governments immigrate their entire armies into America’s borders? Since there’s no ‘legitimate authority’ and we can’t restrict anyone’s movement you have no argument to say we shouldn’t do these things.

              2. How do you have a Republican form of government without nation states or national borders? Who gets to vote in your system, Epi?

                It’s easy to say “I am standing on principles” when you don’t bother to explain how your system is actually supposed to work. That’s why this statement:

                I realize you will probably call me extreme for this, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about theoretical results

                is a grotesque cop out. It’s akin to a Communist saying “I don’t care if Communism works because I don’t give a shit about theoretical results.”

                In such a debate, in which results are completely ignored, how are we supposed to tell if you or the Communist is right? At that point you’ve essentially eliminated the ability to debate and everyone can just yell their principles at each other without providing evidence for how the system is supposed tow ork.

                1. Irish, I don’t care about “systems”. I don’t know if you’ve gathered this (though I think you have), but I completely reject any form of collectivism, and that includes government. I alone am responsible for my actions.

                  The thing that a lot of people seem to misunderstand is that I am not proposing a “system”. I already think that humans interact in the ways they do, and all “systems” are just facades to pretend that we aren’t all individual anarchists, because that scares the living fuck out of a lot of people for some reason.

                  1. I already think that humans interact in the ways they do, and all “systems” are just facades to pretend that we aren’t all individual anarchists, because that scares the living fuck out of a lot of people for some reason.

                    It probably worries people because if Republican nations all felt this way any totalitarian government could massacre the opposition with no counter force to stop them.

                    Whether or not you believe in systems is of no relevance. Other countries do, dictators certainly do, and an anarchist society would be wonderful and peaceful for approximately five days until they were put to the sword.

                    You really are essentially using arguments I’d expect from a Communist. ‘Who cares about death and misery? I don’t believe in “systems,” man. Everything will just work out because we’re anarchists at heart.’

                    1. Everything will just work out because we’re anarchists at heart.

                      This is abjectly false. Why is it so fucking hard for non-anarchists to understand that anarchists don’t think anarchy is some fucking utopia? It’s insane projection on a scale that I’ve never experienced elsewhere. Because you think that there’s some system that can be created–if we just do it right–you think that I think the same thing.

                      I don’t.

                      I recognize that humans are humans and that all of their “systems” are just bullshit facades papering over the fact that at the end of the day, that guy will murder his wife for cheating on him no matter what idiotic “system” you have in place. That you will speed on the highway, because the speed limit is stupid. That you will break any law you find inconvenient. Which means that all “systems” are, at the end of the day, lies. You can try and block immigration with your system because of welfare, and guess what? Illegals will still cross the border.

                      Please, if you’re going to call me a communist, first understand what I’m actually saying.

                  2. See, you’re living proof that understanding your enemies does not end hate.

                  3. I don’t care about “systems”.

                    of course, you do. You live in one, you work in one, you recreate in one. There are things you because you have to do them, be that getting a driver’s license, paying taxes, or a thousand other things. You’re not voluntarily giving govt a percentage of your income. And I doubt you’re showing up at the office only when the mood strikes you.

                    I get your standing on a principle. Fine, no argument with that. But you’re not outside the bubble.

            2. Mass immigration is a bad deal for a lot of people who already live here.

              Bull. Shit. This has been fisked over and over again but it’s clear you are immune to evidence, and that is why your side is being ignored. The GOP is just going to move on.

          2. and the results of your principles, epi? “Screw that” is not an appropriate answer. The nation-state is not a new concept; seems the liberty of those within it should carry some weight.

            1. “seems the liberty of those within it should carry some weight.”

              At least the majority, right?

              1. the minority doesn’t care about its liberty?

          3. I’m sorry, but I don’t base my commitment to liberty based on how people might theoretically vote. I’m not going to scuttle my principles in that way.

            You can pretty easily principle yourself into a “first they came for the Jews” situation that way, unfortunately. Everybody deserves the freedom to be wrong, but they are wrong at your expense due to our current political system.

            1. Can you rephrase this? Because (I’m not being snarky) I seriously have no idea what your point is.

              1. Other people exercising their freedoms in our current political system might end up sending you to the gulags. You already addressed this above: you don’t give you a shit.

                1. There’s really not much I can do about that if it happens. The only thing I can do is try and defend myself with whatever weapons I have. Maybe if there is free movement, I can escape where I’m at and go somewhere else.

                  I don’t give a shit because there’s nothing to give a shit about. If the vast majority is against you, you’re fucked. All I have is my principles.

        4. People who disagree with you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I mean, it’s obvious.

        5. The fucking Irish! Shitting out babies like the fat drunk welfare queens they are!

          1. We are a plague.

            I would like to point out that my argument has nothing to do with race but has to do with the current flaws in the welfare system which make mass immigration less workable than it was in the past.

            Return to 1905 levels of welfare spending and I’d be completely fine with mass immigration, provided the people aren’t career criminals and don’t carry severe diseases.

            Again, this argument makes me a vile nativist who hates liberty.

            1. That’s a good point. The Irish really weren’t receiving welfare. They came here, worked shitty jobs, and didn’t starve. The system they were escaping in Ireland was so awful that living in an east coast city slum was preferable. At least you didn’t have to pay a lord for the right to starve on a miserable blighted plot of land.

              By the standards of yore our welfare state is completely bonkers.

    2. bad policies put a stain on what you see as fundamental liberties. There are some real-live consequences to the world as you would like it because human being can be that way.

      The whole world has borders which is not a great counter-argument, but it is one anyway. I don’t see how the US becoming an all-comers meet works if no one else subscribes to that.

    3. I, for one, would like to live in a more libertarian friendly society. While I agree that freedom of movement and association are core libertarian values, I’m a pragmatist. I simply don’t see how encouraging the immigration of people who hold views diametrically opposed to libertarianism will lead to a place I want to go.

      Alexis de Tocquville had it about right:
      “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

      1. I guess I’m just opposed to “pragmatic” or utilitarian viewpoints. I’m either in favor of freedom of movement, or I’m not. Since I’m actually in favor of liberty, I’m for freedom of movement, even if there are negative results because of other policies (which I do not support, such as welfare or voting).

        1. I’m in favor of freedom of movement if a system exists that allows that freedom of movement to make sense.

          Principles are great, but if you want to play chicken with reality reality will not be the one to turn.

          It amazes me that you’re so capable of calling out progs for ignoring the unintended consequences of their beliefs but you’re ignoring the unintended consequences of your own.

          1. I’m in favor of freedom of (X) if a system exists that allows that freedom of (X) to make sense.

            You may substitute your favorite bugaboo for the variable.

          2. I’m in favor of _________ if a system exists that allows that _________ to make sense.

            insert any right you want

          3. Whoa, hold on there, Sparky. There are no “unintended consequences” to basic liberties. That’s like saying I’m ignoring the fact that some people might abuse drugs while advocating the ability to put what you want in your own body. Of course that will happen, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the right thing.

            Of course there will be down sides. The act of actually realizing that yet advocating for liberty anyway is the exact opposite of progressives or statists.

            1. This is not simply a ‘possible’ downside, it is a guaranteed downside in the current welfare system.

              The welfare system is designed to breed dependency among the poor and low skilled. That’s pretty much the point, as admitted by Lyndon Johnson.

              Black America was getting wealthier and better educated right up until the War on Poverty. At that point, all the good trends reversed themselves and we ended up with the ghettos of today.

              I don’t see how allowing large amounts of immigration that is guaranteed to result in the same thing is a net positive for liberty. Is it really a positive for liberty to allow freedom of movement so that people can immediately become dependent upon government force?

              1. I don’t see how allowing large amounts of immigration that is guaranteed to result in the same thing is a net positive for liberty.

                Geez you folks can be dense. Your discussion about what constitutes a “net positive for liberty” boils down to what should and should not be “allowed”?

                Apparently, the popular libertarian response to immigration comes from the same place as free speech zones and sensible gun control legislation.

            2. are you really drawing no distinction between the individual’s choice to put things in his/her body and the individual’s choice to game a system paid for by others that he/she does not contribute to? Come on.

          4. Principles are great, but if you want to play chicken with reality reality will not be the one to turn.

            The dude is in prison for jay walking. Don’t you dare question his undying commitment to the free movement cause.

            1. The dude is in prison for jay walking. Don’t you dare question his undying commitment to the free movement cause.

              What does this mean?

              1. What does this mean?

                I think that was supposed to be followed with a link like:

                http://www.AnonPlanet.tk

              2. It’s a sarcastic way of agreeing with your point.

    4. I think the key word in your post is “supposed.”
      You are not necessarily stupid, ignorant or racist if you oppose the free movement of people. But you are certainly not a libertarian.

      1. so now it’s a litmus test issue. The principle make sound frothy and delicious, but there is a reality behind it that is not always pretty.

        1. The principle make sound frothy and delicious, but there is a reality behind it that is not always pretty.

          Ah. Just what the NSA says about security vs. liberty.

          1. that makes no sense. I must have missed the legions of NSA supporters touting the surveillance policy. Hit the straw man a little higher.

            1. I must have missed the legions of NSA supporters

              Congress if full of them. Where you been?

              1. you are actually equating these two issues.

                1. No, he using it as an analogy. You can make an argument for restricting any rights based on “reality”.

                  “Hey, in an ideal world I’d be all for the right to bear arms, but ‘there is a reality behind it that is not always pretty’.”

                2. I’m saying that anyone can use your argument as an apology for anything.

                  1. the welfare state makes your vision of open borders a disaster in the waiting. You cannot pretend that the two have no connection to one another. That’s not an apology for anything; it’s recognizing what is.

                    1. the welfare state makes your vision of open borders a disaster in the waiting.

                      No it doesn’t. This has been settled already: immigrants don’t do welfare as much as the natives adjusted for income. Even if they did, it would be a disaster for the welfare state.

      2. So all Libertarians are transnationalists who deny national sovereignty?

        Maybe. I would tend to agree with you in some ways. But that definitely reduces the number of people who meet the definition.

        1. Did the US have no national sovereignty for the first 100 years it existed? If you want to make the case against open borders, fine, but I’m not seeing how supporting open borders means you deny national sovereignty completely.

          1. Did the US have no national sovereignty for the first 100 years it existed?

            Of course it did. But just because it chose to have open borders doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been within its rights to close them. If nation’s can’t control their own territory, they are not nations anymore.

            1. What do you mean by “can’t?” Lacking the power? Clearly, every government has the power to control their borders, provided a stronger force doesn’t oppose them. Disagreeing with the morality of using borders to stop voluntary transactions doesn’t mean the country doesn’t have the power to control its borders, or that it’s somehow illegitimate to defend its borders against an actual invading army.

              1. What do you mean by “can’t?”

                I mean not do so within the confines of legitimacy and morality. If you view immigration as just another policy argument to be determined by results, then you recognize national sovereignty.

                If you view immigration the way many people on here view it as a morality and freedom issue, then no government can control its borders without violating people’s rights. Thus, no legitimate government can control its borders. And any government that can’t control its borders is really a government or a sovereign. Thus, there are no legitimate sovereigns.

                1. “If you view immigration the way many people on here view it as a morality and freedom issue, then no government can control its borders without violating people’s rights. Thus, no legitimate government can control its borders.”

                  Regarding voluntary transactions, yes, I agree with that. However, a government can IMO legitimately control its borders to repel an invading army, for example.

                  “And any government that can’t control its borders is really a government or a sovereign.”

                  That’s a leap there. I also think you’re confusing residence with citizenship in this analysis.

                  1. Regarding voluntary transactions, yes, I agree with that. However, a government can IMO legitimately control its borders to repel an invading army, for example.

                    That is just collective self defense. That is not a sovereign. Individuals have the ability to do that. And even that can’t be done within the confines of not restricting voluntary transactions. What if I am happy to let the Chinese build an army base on my land? Who are you to tell me I can’t if you don’t have t he ability to in any way restrict voluntary transactions?

                    If you can stop an army, you can stop an immigrant.

                    1. “If you can stop an army, you can stop an immigrant.”

                      Obviously. All I’m saying is that the former is a valid and moral government purpose and the latter is not. Somehow pretending that that equals anarchy is asinine.

                    2. All I’m saying is that the former is a valid and moral government purpose and the latter is not.

                      Why? Again, if I want to lease my land to the Chinese Army, why can’t I? If a government is unable to restrict any voluntary transactions by its citizens, then it can’t stop an army because at least some of the citizens will be happy to see the Army come. I am sure there are some land owning Chinese Nationals who would invite the army in. Under your rules the government can’t stop them.

                    3. Because an army is a group of soldiers hired by a foreign government that (when deployed abroad) is used to project force wherever they’re sent? John, if you have to invent asinine scenarios where people are leasing bases to foreign armies to justify the morality of stopping an engineer or a gardener from crossing a border, then I don’t think I need to make my point any further.

                    4. There is nothing assine about it. You just can’t come up with an answer.

                      1. If I want to lease my land to the Chinese Army, is that or is that not a voluntary transaction?

                      2. If it is, how can the government stop me from doing it consistent with your principle that no government has the right to prevent voluntary transactions by its citizens?

                      What you are left with is saying “that is different” or “it can sometimes restrict voluntary transactions if it involves an army”.

                      Well that is nice and I agree with you. But you are left with admitting that yes, governments can restrict some voluntary transactions and we are back to debating if immigration is a good idea or not and you no longer can claim it is an issue of rights and legitimacy.

                    5. What John is saying is that we should do something harmful to demonstrate we have the sovereign right to do that harmful thing.

                    6. John, this is akin to Tony’s argument that if you support the right of the government to tax to have an army, police, or courts, you can’t complain about taxation to fund the welfare state. And as I said to wareagle, I would be content with a system that was virtually open borders, with the government nominally asserting your precious “sovereignteh”

      3. You are not necessarily stupid, ignorant or racist if you oppose the free movement of people. But you are certainly not a libertarian.

        I have to say, I’m honored to meet someone with the moral authority to drum Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman and John Hospers out of the libertarian movement.

    5. I don’t hate freedom of movement. I have problems with allowing mass low income immigration in a situation where our welfare system is already overburdened.

      What I don’t understand is why so many libertarians seem intent on collapsing the American economy by importing poverty into a country with a welfare system that keeps those people eternally impoverished. This is going to create another economically crippled minority group which is bad for them and bad for us.

      What we need is welfare reform. Allowing mass immigration into the current welfare environment is irresponsible, and it has nothing to do with strawmen about immigrants ‘taking our jerbs.’

      1. I guess the question, Irish, is are you a utilitarian, or are you principled? I don’t personally think a utilitarian can be principled, and I actually find the whole mindset utterly repulsive.

        Wasn’t this covered with the gay marriage thing? Yes, the ideal situation would be to get the state out of marriage. Since that isn’t happening any time soon, some of us argued that equality before the law–which was and has been possible–was the thing to go for at this juncture. Isn’t it the same with increased freedom of movement? Welfare isn’t going away any time soon. Should that stop us from advocating for increased liberty?

        1. It’s not increased liberty because a large portion of that immigration is going to result in LESS economic liberty due to increased welfare spending.

          This isn’t like the gay marriage issue. There’s no real way that allowing gay people to partake in the current licensing system results in less liberty – the licensing system remains unchanged and it doesn’t actually cost us anything.

          That’s different than low skilled immigrants causing ever higher welfare spending. They gain liberty through freedom of movement, but Americans lose liberty through increased governmental theft. Pretending there’s no tradeoff is absurd.

          1. Once again, you are advocating restricting a basic liberty solely because un-free policies have been put in place by statists. If you follow this to its logical conclusion, every basic liberty has come under attack by a government somewhere, therefore, according to you, it’s totally ok to restrict them.

          2. It’s not just immigrants’ freedom of movement at stake. It’s absurd that you think it is. There are a long list of freedoms of Americans that are impacted by our immigration policy. In addition to obvious ones like freedom to hire, sell, or rent to whomever you like, there’s the issue of the Constitution-free “border zones,” to give an example.

            “They gain liberty through freedom of movement, but Americans lose liberty through increased governmental theft.”

            This logic could apply to almost anything. I’ve seen this exact argument made regarding drugs, smoking, alcohol use, consumption of unhealthy foods, etc. Gun banners argue that gun freedom increases homicide, justifying their banning. I don’t think that’s true, but even if I did, I would still support gun rights.

            Lastly, this discussion is kind of absurd, because we’re arguing over something that isn’t going to happen (open borders) but assuming that in this fantasy land, nothing else could possibly change. I mean, if we’re assuming that open borders gets passed, why can’t we assume that it would be accompanied by changes (if not the abolition of) to the welfare state that would alleviate such concerns?

            1. Lastly, this discussion is kind of absurd, because we’re arguing over something that isn’t going to happen (open borders)

              Part of that is because Shikha intentionally pulls that shit every time she writes an immigration article, as if whatever bill du jour happens to be bouncing around congressional committees is the magic libertarian immigration bullet.

              1. I don’t think this was a great article, but I don’t think she did was you accuse her of. Her first sentence calls it “lame.”

                1. Indeed, but she then proceeds to shout names at anybody she can think of on the right who opposes it. If you don’t like the bill, why are you defending it against its detractors? Reason did the same shit with the senate bill a couple years back.

                  1. To be fair, the people Reason criticized in this article are not merely opponents of this bill. There pretty well-known opponents of immigration reform in general, with the possible exceptions of the two magazines, who apparently make reform contingent on turning the Mexican border into the Berlin Wall.

        2. Whose liberty is being increased when the taxpayer has to pay for more welfare?

        3. liberty at whose expense? Unfettered immigration is not free of consequences.

          1. Unfettered gun ownership is not free of consequence. Unfettered free speech is not free of consequences. Unfettered freedom of association is not free of consequences.

            1. nice straw army you have there. Constitutional rights vs. one that isn’t.

              1. Whether or not it is in the Constitution or not has no bearing on whether any of those things are free of consequences, not does it impact the morality of those things. Also, I’m failing to see the section of the Constitution that justifies current immigration laws. And no, “naturalization” is not synonymous with “immigration”

                1. you’re welcome to champion the open borders movement and see if govt will adopt it but you’re facing a tough road. If a nation has no borders, it’s not really a nation. Borders are among the things that define countries. I don’t see them being erased soon.

                  1. Apparently open borders = no borders.

                    1. in the practice you and some others are advocating, what would be the difference? If borders serve no real purpose other than maybe being geographical markers, why have them at all?

                    2. Border still would mark where one nation’s laws begin and the others end. I’m also not suggesting that it’s somehow illegitimate for the government to stop an invading army. And honestly, I’d be fine if we adopted a system that was virtually open borders (where immigrants had to apply, but it was quick, inexpensive, and virtually everyone was approved) even if it wasn’t 100%.

              2. The Constitution is not the thing that makes your rights rights.

    6. Because not everyone is a transnationalist anarchist. If you deny the right of a sovereign to control its borders, you deny its sovereignty. That is a feature not a bug if you don’t believe in nation states. It is a bit of a bug if you do.

      The argument over immigration, when couched in terms of freedom of moment is no longer an argument about immigration. It is an argument about the legitimacy of the nation state.

      I recognize the idea of nation states. Therefore I think the Constitution protects American’s right to movement, not everyone. I have no more right to move to Mexico without the Mexican government agreeing than Mexicans have to move here. If the Mexicans don’t like Gringos buying up their land, it is their country not mine. But that only makes sense if you think nation states are legitimate.

      1. This is Tony-level idiocy.

        Rights don’t come from the government.

        1. Rights come from the barrel of a gun and the government has a lot of guns

        2. Where did I saw rights come from the government? I said if a government cannot control its borders, it is not really government.

          Again if you are a transnationalists and you don’t believe in nations, immigration is a moral not a policy issue

          You only think it is idiocy because you are on this issue at least a fucking moron and what I was saying went right over your head.

          1. What I’m saying, Red Tony, is that you’re employeeing the same arguments that Tony uses here on a regular basis particularly as a relates to rights.

            The right to free movement exists regardless of what the state and its supporters (in this case you) say.

            To say that is not to, as you stupidly suggest, is not to deny the nation state. Your making an idiot leap.

            Tony: If your against welfare, you must be ok with people dying in the street.

            Red Tony: If your against the government controlling its borders, you must be a full on anarchist.

            1. The right to free movement exists regardless of what the state and its supporters (in this case you) say.

              Nice baseless assertion you have there. We all have to start somewhere with some assumptions, nice you have one. Now lets work from there and see where it goes.

              If no government has the right to tell anyone they can’t enter its borders, then no government controls any territory. If you don’t control territory you are not a sovereign.

              You just don’t believe in governments. Why it upsets you to have that pointed out is beyond me.

              1. “Nice baseless assertion you have there. We all have to start somewhere with some assumptions, nice you have one. Now lets work from there and see where it goes.

                If no government has the right to tell anyone they can’t enter its borders, then no government controls any territory. If you don’t control territory you are not a sovereign.”

                The government operated under pretty much that very assumption as it had almost 0 border control when it came to immigrants for the first 100 years of existance. Are you suggesting it wasn’t a sovereign at that time?

                1. the govt didn’t have a welfare state in that first 100 years, either. Folks who came did so with the understanding that they would be on their own. That is no longer the case.

                2. You completely miss the point. The question is not “can we have open borders”. Of course we can and have. The question is “can we have closed borders”. If your answer is no, then you reject national sovereignty. That is the debate. No one is saying it is impossible for a country to choose to open its borders. The issue is does a government even have a right to make that choice.

                  1. Fine John, if zombies invade then we have the right to close the borders. Is your sovereignty itch satisfied now?

          2. What I’m saying, Red Tony, is that you’re employeeing the same arguments that Tony uses here on a regular basis particularly as a relates to rights.

            The right to free movement exists regardless of what the state and its supporters (in this case you) say.

            To say that is not to, as you stupidly suggest, is not to deny the nation state. Your making an idiot leap.

            Tony: If your against welfare, you must be ok with people dying in the street.

            Red Tony: If your against the government controlling its borders, you must be a full on anarchist.

        3. Where do they come from?

    7. Did somebody propose freedom of movement?

    8. I’m curious to know where this thing about ‘freedom of movement’ being a primary liberty comes from.

      It doesn’t occur in nature.

      Movement is always restricted by what’s around any living thing–unless it’s the biggest baddest thing in the vicinity. Animals are territorial. plants are territiorial. They defend the territory they claim. They allow ‘free movement’ to things that are not competition, things that could best them, and things they don’t see–provided, of course that the thing doesn’t try to settle in their territory.

      Territory means food, and food means mates and offspring.

      This is simply the way of things and no collection of words will change that.

      There have been behavioral adaptations so that multiple animals of the same kind can live together–to hold even more territory to themselves, but there really haven’t been any that allow the holding of no territory.

      So where does this come from?

  10. “War on immigrants”. Jeez, what a child.

  11. “I’m still failing to…”

    You must be used to it by now.

  12. Setting aside the fact that 45-plus percent of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush

    What does this have to do with immigration? If Shikha is dumb enough to believe most Hispanics in America are immigrants you can’t take her opinion on anything seriously.

    1. She also assumes that every Hispanic is a single issue immigration voter. What Hispanics just like Democratic policies and will thank the Republicans for amnesty and continue to vote Democrat for other reasons? That possibility never seems to occur to her.

    2. This is also a complete fucking lie.

  13. Fuck you, cut spending. Unless we open the borders, in which case we don’t give a flying fuck about spending.

  14. I’m usually glad to have all you conservative fellow travelers and sympathizers on board, but you really should just get the fuck off the immigration threads and go comment at National Review.
    We’ll be talking taxes and spending soon enough and you can come play and pretend to be on our side again.

    1. And what about the fellow traveler free movement types who do not realize that the present amount of free movement comes from massive government support.

      If people actually owned their own property and had full rights to control them then free movement would be a very limited thing since nobody is going to give away their property rights to all 7 billion people on Earth.

      Every property owner could set their own standards on who could enter their property and no matter what the free movement types say.

      1. My god. It’s full of derp.

        1. You have no real response and it shows

          1. You’re right. To you DJF, there can be no real response.

      2. Massive restrictions on the movement of trade and goods done on a owner by owner basis. That sounds like a recipe for prosperity.

    2. Oh, fuck you. I’m libertarian on virtually every issue, from gay rights to drug laws to foreign affairs.

      Disagreeing with you on one issue and providing evidence for my beliefs does not make me a ‘conservative fellow traveler.’ This is the sort of holier-than-thou rhetoric I’d expect from a prog when someone dares to utter a heresy against the noble left-wing worldview.

    3. Either be honest like Episiarch and admit you don’t recognize the legitimacy of any national government or stop clutching your pearls and admit immigration is a policy not a moral issue.

      1. “you don’t recognize the legitimacy of any national government”

        Derp… red tony strikes again.

        “If you’re against affirmative action, you must hate black people, right red tony?

      2. So is gun control a policy, not moral issue? Is free speech? How about freedom of association? How about taxation? How about anything? Nothing? If immigration isn’t a moral issue, then perhaps nothing is.

        1. It is a moral issue. But, the right to personal self defense is not inconsistent with the existence of a sovereign. Disarming its population is not a necessary attribute of a sovereign. Controlling its borders is.

          If you think freedom of movement is the most important value or at least more important than poeple’s ability to form groups and control territory via a sovereign, that is fine. Maybe you are right. But if you believe that, you don’t believe in national sovereignty.

          1. “It is a moral issue. But, the right to personal self defense is not inconsistent with the existence of a sovereign. ”

            Either is the right to free movement as was shown in this very country’s first century.

            1. Either is the right to free movement as was shown in this very country’s first century.

              Just because the country chose to have open borders doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have closed them if it had wanted to.

              You are begging the question.

              1. All I’m saying is the nation state was fine under open borders, but if you want to make that argument I would ask by what authority does the US govenment have to limit our right to free movement. It certainly isn’t found in the constitution.

                1. All I’m saying is the nation state was fine under open borders,

                  Which means that it might be a good idea to have open borders. That says nothing about the question of whether not having open borders is something a government can legitimately do.

                  I would ask by what authority does the US govenment have to limit our right to free movement.

                  It doesn’t have the power to restrict your movement. But immigration restrictions don’t restrict your movement. They restrict the movement of people who don’t live here. And the constitution no more protects a Mexican living in Mexico’s ability to move here than it guarantees him the right to trial by jury in Mexican courts.

                  Since when does the Constitution apply to people not living in this country? And if it doesn’t, how is it relevant in determining the rights of someone who wants to come here?

                  Lastly, the Constitution gives Congress the power to To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. We can debate if naturalization means citizenship or legal status. But generally it has been read to mean legality of being here.

                  1. Naturalization is not a tough word to understand. It referred to citizenship. That’s why there were strict rules on naturalization, but not immigration, for 100 years after the Constitution was passed. This isn’t rocket science.

                    1. Naturalization is not a tough word to understand. It referred to citizenship. That’s why there were strict rules on naturalization, but not immigration, for 100 years after the Constitution was passed.

                      Except that there isn’t a single piece of evidence that that is what it meant or that anyone who wrote the Constitution didn’t recognize Congress’ supremacy in the area. They chose to have open borders. Show me a single piece of evidence that shows the Framers ever intended for the States to control this or thought Congress couldn’t restrict immigration? There isn’t any.

                      You are right it is not rocket science. But you apparently still can’t do it.

                    2. The fact that they passed laws that restricted naturalization, but clearly didn’t affect immigration itself, is evident that the Founders did not view the two as synonymous.

              2. Just because the country chose to have open borders doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have closed them if it had wanted to.

                Just because the country chose to let people whose names started with a vowel live doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have executed them if it had wanted to.

                Where does your notion of sovereignty end?

                1. Mike,

                  Pay some fucking attention. “couldn’t” means do so within the bounds of morality and legitimacy. That is what we are talking about here. If you are only capable of begging the question or just asserting “that is not right”, go somewhere else.

                  1. Just so long as we all realize that sovereignty is not a normative argument.

    4. and here comes the proggie wing, out to eradicate any dissent from the ranks. Because no one’s rights would possibly violated, no one’s at all, by your fantasy of open borders. Non-aggression all the way down.

      1. CN is the farthest thing from a progressive. Sometimes, those of us who really believe in this stuff get frustrated when others don’t seem to. I’ve tried–hard–to not get pissy on this thread about it, and tried to express it without being an asshole. Sometimes I fail at that, and clearly so does CN. But I understand his frustration. Quite well.

        1. I think L. Neil Smith says something about “guns” being the one issue that allows him to separate the political wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If you can’t understand how crucial the right to bear arms is to basic freedom, then you understand nothing, he says.
          I feel kind of the same way about freedom of movement and immigration. I guess I just don’t understand how someone can claim to value individual human freedom above all else — and oppose it.

          1. Why do you HATE the nation state CN?

          2. And unlike Epi, I never try to express anything without being an asshole. It is my own particular…idiom!

            1. Fuck you, I’m a way bigger asshole.

        2. unlike CN, you have made your point without the need to tell dissenters to go to hell. Can’t argue with that. I just disagree. That’s all.

          1. I didn’t say go to hell. I said go to National Review. But I can see how you might confuse the two.

            1. either way, it implies there is no room for dissent at the libertarian inn. Did I misinterpret that?

              1. There is no room for you at MY Libertarian Inn ™. It’s all full up with immigrants.

                1. I mean, if you want to call yourself an eastern pileated woodpecker or the Golden Rule of Three, you certainly can.

                2. Tey took you imaginary roomz!

      2. Because no one’s rights would possibly violated, no one’s at all, by your fantasy of (x).
        Where (x) is your favorite bugaboo. Now imagine what Tony would insert for the variable. Imagine what the Plug would stick there.
        This is just what you sound like — just what your argument boils down to, a rehash of Tony/Plug logic.

        1. I thought not violating other people’s rights was a big deal around here. Apparently not where immigration is concerned.

          The concept of the nation-state is hardly new; the US didn’t invent it. Borders have historically defined countries. This is hardly the only issue on which people here disagree.

          1. “I thought not violating other people’s rights was a big deal around here. Apparently not where immigration is concerned.”

            Yes, as evidenced by your opinion on this matter.

  15. Iran is our enemy right? We should let it be known that any Iranians who can get here will get a green card as soon as they show up. Iran would empty out in a year, in fact they’re PHD’s would be the first to leave.

    1. Naw. They’d all get on that sweet, sweet welfare teat and start voting Democrat. It’s the immigrant way.

    2. Iran is not my enemy.

      And if your solution to every world problems is for everyone to move to the US then the US will have the worlds problems.

      1. Good to hear. But they get to decide if you are their enemy, not you.

      2. And if your solution to every world problems is for everyone to move to the US then the US will have the worlds problems.

        Any day now, America will just magically become a third world shithole, and all because THEY TRK R JERBS.

    3. That wouldn’t work. Iran would just close its borders. Where it would work is Palestine. We could absorb 90% of the Palestinian population and hardly know they were here. After the remaining ten percent blew themselves up for the Jihad, the conflict would be over.

      1. They reproduce so if ten percent are blowing themselves up what the stop the next generation from blowing themselves up.

        Also why would I want Israels problem, dosn’t the US have enough problems on its own?

        1. what the stop the next generation from blowing themselves up.

          The fact that they will be living in the US making an honest living with is what the 90% want.

          Also why would I want Israels problem, dosn’t the US have enough problems on its own?

          The 90% that came here wouldn’t be a problem. It is the 10% that are the problem and they will stay there.

          1. Why would they stay there? Couldn’t they come here and wage war against the Great Satan?

            I actually agree with you that allowing Palestinians to move here would help resolve a lot of problems in the Middle East. We’d just have to make sure the people coming weren’t the terrorists and didn’t have ties to Hamas.

            1. The Palestinian jihadists have spent 60 years trying to conquer Israel. Why would they decide to give up at this point?

  16. The Constitution doesn’t really give fed gov the power to regulate immigration, though, does it? The power to regulate naturalization, yes, but not immigration itself. Why not let it be a state or even more localized issue? If California wants to give a state wide “safe harbor” and North Dakota wants to have a more restrictive policy, fine. Lets have the ” more or less immigration?” debate at the state level.

    1. That is actually a good solution. Turn greencards over to the states. The feds wold still have to power to deport criminals and such under its power of common defense.

      That would go a long way to solving this issue at least at the national level.

      1. See — like gay marriage, this is a good step in the right direction. I could support it.

      2. You can’t be a citizen of a state but not a citizen of the US, right?

        1. No. You can be a LPR and be a citizen of the state you live in but not be a US citizen.

        2. Once you’re naturalized by fed gov, sure, you’re a citizen of both the state and nation. But why can’t a state let you stay there indefinitely without becoming a citizen?

          1. That’s what they’re doing now.

            People seem to neglect to realize that the status quo is a de facto amnesty for millions.

            1. Which I don’t really have a problem with, as long as voting is still a citizens-only thing. But showing an ID to vote is also very racist.

              1. Okay all you’re saying is you’re fine with having an underclass of migrant workers–subject to our laws, of course–as long as they can’t vote. This is not principled in any way.

                1. It’s completely voluntary, unlike much of the proposals you’re fine with.

                  1. What the hell are you talking about.

                    1. Immigration. It’s voluntary. It’s completely bizarre to suggest that people would come to the country at gunpoint and then expect to be granted the rights of a citizen when they got here.

                    2. It’s voluntary but you want to build a bigger, better armed wall?

                    3. No I don’t like the wall. Your collectivism is insane man. We are all individuals with very different ideas. Clearly this topic should show you how much people here disagree.

                    4. I’m under no illusion that libertarians tend to split whenever rightwing conservatism conflicts with their stated principles.

        3. Naturalization is not synonymous with immigration Tony. The feds would still have power over naturalization. You don’t get citizenship when you get legal residency here.

          1. Only if you read naturalization to mean just citizenship and not legal residency.

            That is an old argument. But no court has ever read it that way. And I have never seen a single piece of evidence that the drafters of the Constitution meant it that way. I read that provision to mean Congress not the states has the power over immigration. Show me where they intended Georgia and not the Congress to determine if someone can legally enter the country because I have never seen any evidence that they did.

          2. I would think that the principles of freedom of travel among the states, full faith and credit, and the text of the 14th amendment itself would make this proposal problematic. Not having hierarchies of citizenship is a pretty bedrock American thing.

            1. Those are actually good points. If someone gets a greencard from California, Nebraska is obligated to recognize it. Such a system would never work.

              That is also a very good argument against the notion that the founders intended the naturalization clause to only apply to citizenship and not immigration in general

    2. That’s not a terrible idea, provided you also scaled down the national welfare system and made welfare a state’s only issue.

      I think virtually all of this stuff should be decided locally. Apparently this makes me a nativist that hates free movement and wants immigrants to die in a squalid and drug infested hell.

  17. Would someone mind explaining to me what the libertarian argument against reforming immigration is? Is it favoring the status quo? Because nobody seems to be talking about the actual reforms being proposed. Everyone seems to be under the impression that the status quo has some kind of virtue that would be soiled by legislation. But nobody thinks the current system is free, fair, humane, sane, or rational. There’s no defense of it. So what’s the deal?

    1. Would someone mind explaining to me what the libertarian argument against reforming immigration is?

      If said reforms include police-state bullshit like E-verify.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Would someone mind explaining to me what [is] the libertarian argument against reforming immigration[…]?

      There’s no such thing as a libertarian argument against immigration or reforming the immigration policies to reduce the restriction on immigration.

  18. Given that the open borders cranks are once again drumming anyone that doesn’t think opening the borders is such a smart idea out of the libertarian movement, I’d like to take the opportunity to invite our ex-libertarian refugees to take a look at the neoreactionary movement, another group of ex-libertarians.

    Yes! You really can be pro-freedom without demanding your country turns itself into a 3rd world hellhole!

    1. Who is proposing opening the border?!?

      I guarantee you any legislation coming out of this Congress will add even more ludicrous levels of security to the US-Mexico border.

      1. I’ll take that bet. Mostly because that movie has played before. The ending does not change. By the way, to have “more ludicrous levels” implies that some exist. Probably explains why this remains an issue.

        1. It pains me that we could have not spent $100 billion on US-Mexico border security and it wouldn’t have changed anything, except we’d be $100 billion richer. You guys never even noticed. It’s never going to be secure enough, so why did we even bother?

          1. we spent damn near a trillion on Obama’s stimulus and it changed nothing. Some folks think a border means something more than a green “welcome to” sign. And plenty here don’t like the concept at all. Has the lack of groupthink confused you?

            1. Expensive sign. Lots of bells and whistles.

            2. Tony has difficulty understanding a political philosophy that actually allows people to come to their own conclusions and have debates.

              In the left-wing sites he goes to, everyone just calmly waits for Obama to proclaim what they are supposed to believe and then repeat it like good little servants.

              Disagreement among a political organization is alien to Tony’s fascist mind.

              1. I do expect you to adhere to your principles even when it’s inconvenient, being that you’re absolutists.

                But I can’t even get a libertarian to imagine how Libertopia would inconvenience him in any way.

            3. Congrats you’ve made Toney look smart and reasonable.

              He’s right: we already blow tons of money because neurotic nativists demand it to assuage their fever dreams of America somehow turning 3rd world because we let in foreign people.

    2. Shut up. I’m not being ‘drummed out’ of the libertarian movement due to disagreements over this issue and I’m sure as hell not going to join up with a bunch of crypto-monarchists like the neoreactionaries.

      A proto-fascist like Thomas Carlyle is beloved by many of those people. Not exactly my scene.

      1. Actually, Irish, you are being drummed out of the movement.
        Like this: I, THROUGH THE POWERS VESTED IN ME BY THE SHADE OF LYSANDER SPOONER, BREAK WITH THEE.

        Sorry I had to do it, dude. But you were asking for it.

        1. CN, don’t you know anything? You have to pronounce it publicly three times.

      2. You’ll have to join up with the Judean People’s Front.

    3. I blame this on … well, I don’t know what the fuck to blame this on.

      1. It’s the booze. It’s always the booze. And the Lupus.

  19. E-Verrify. That shit pisses me off. It better not be in there.

    1. You know it will be. And that is a hundred times worse than not getting amnesty.

      1. To me, that is enough to throw all the fine philosophical distinctions about freedom of movement and national sovereingty out the window. E-verify should be enough to make any body who calls them selves a libertarian against any bill that has it.

        1. I am sorry, but my right to get a job without government permission outweighs someone in Canada’s right to relocate here.

  20. I must have missed where anyone in congress is proposing “freedom of movement”. That issue isn’t on the table in any of the proposed immigration reforms.

  21. So all Libertarians are transnationalists who deny national sovereignty?

    Not at all. But the object of sovereignty is to keep other nations laws and enforcement from crossing the border, not to keep other nations’ people from crossing the border.

    Sovereignty is nothing but the positive fact that a government can do whatever it wants within its own borders. One would hope that the things a government does secured individual rights rather than abrogated them.

    1. How does someone who isn’t within our borders be said to in any way have “rights” that this government must respect?

      You are assuming that governments owe rights to people outside their borders. Can the US government tell you that you can’t move to Toronto? No. But the Canadian government can. Since when it is their responsibility to protect your rights?

      1. The US is not responsible for securing the rights of people outside its borders — other than against the US’s own actions of course.

        What is at issue is the boundary condition. Since the US has sovereignty over entry across the national border, it should secure unalienable individual rights there as well.

      2. You are assuming that governments owe rights to people outside their borders.

        Immigration is a right, period.

  22. I am confuse.

    VDARE told me we are importing the poverties AND the GOP is selling out the country AND attempting to appeal to Hispanic voters ( whom, EVEN IF THEY ARE CITIZENS!*) is technically TREASON… AND, I’m not sure why, but that football player guy Sherman isn’t as smart as people think, because Black people and test scores or something.

    http://www.vdare.com/

    AND MUCH MUCH MOAR

    It seems to me that immigration is in many ways simply a wedge issue for people, and may in fact be so charged with bullshit fact-munging from every side that the *actual truth* is completely distorted, torn to shreds, and lost in the back-forth claims and accusations by the absolutists on each side.

    I’m generally ‘pro’ free movement of labor. from all the economic research I’ve done, its a huge driver of overall national wealth, and not the net-drain so many have cartooned. In a country whose core demographic is having fewer and fewer children, we need more labor of all kinds.

    that said, I think I’d rather not let the federal government make one-size-fits-all decisions attempting to ameliorate hysterical extremists on both sides; as ‘an innocent man’ said above: why not let states make their own decisions about it? I’d certainly be happier if Pols had one less ‘scare tactic’ to employ to justify larger and larger Federal Control of !(#*$() everything.

  23. We saw this in Texas: appealing the forever angry and neurotic nativist types does not pay off politically, so the the Texas GOP pulled its head out and left the nativist types behind. Now the fed GOP is doing the same thing. The nativists are a small loud perpetually aggrieved bunch and they just need to be left alone so long as they are incapable of rational discussion. They need to be broken and politically dis-empowered so that the conservatives can be useful to libertarians. Right now they are just to retarded. CN was right a bunch of people here just need to go to NRO.

    1. Another jackass unable to acknowledge the distinction between immigration and illegal immigration.

  24. Re: Tony,

    Where do they [our rights] come from?

    From our nature as reasoning, thinking,self-aware individuals. The fact that we’re conscious and aware of ourselves and our surroundings means that we’re free from the restraints of pure instinct – freedom to choose, freedom of action. Our minds control our own bodies – which means self-ownership. Those serve as the basis for our right to life, freedom and property.

    1. From our nature as reasoning, thinking,self-aware individuals

      So sentience comes with rights, somehow. Check.

      The fact that we’re conscious and aware of ourselves and our surroundings means that we’re free from the restraints of pure instinct – freedom to choose, freedom of action.

      Some philosophers might have a problem with this premise, but we’ll go with it. Basically a restatement of claim 1: sentience entails rights.

      Our minds control our own bodies – which means self-ownership.

      So controlling something means you own it? I control my work computer, but do not own it. (Of course slavers both control and literally own human beings, but that’s tricky when it comes to the slaves’ rights.)

      Look of course this is a disagreement over semantics. You think rights are ideals and that people “have” them in the sense that they deserve to have them. I just think it sounds ridiculous to claim that North Koreans have Jeffersonian rights. I think it’s better for their sake for us to realize that, in fact, they don’t.

      But then if we admit that rights are specific entitlements to act or be free from something, realized by social compact and the threat of force, then you don’t get to dictate what they are as that leaves room for debate.

      1. So sentience comes with rights, somehow.

        Actually, rights requires sentience as rights also require responsibilities.

        IE – animals by definition cannot have rights, in much the same way that if a bear kills a defenseless child we cannot hold said bear responsible in any real way.

        Aside from that – if rights aren’t natural, inborn, and based upon rational self-interest, what are they based upon?

        Politicians? Governmental whims?

        I get your point that functionally, and historically, a country which doesn’t enforce basic rights looks to be a country in which people do not have those rights.

        But under that logic – a country which never enforces rape crimes or never passes those laws automatically means people don’t have the right to not be raped.

        What about rape in international waters or in areas of the world without law? Is it ok since those rights don’t exist in those areas?

        This logics also means when Bosnia, NK, or any other country decides their citizens deserve starvation/death so the elites can keep and secure power – no other country has any right to attempt to stop it.

        Because after all – since only governments get to define rights, if a government decides that it’s their right to commit genocide against some population within its borders, no other government has any right to attempt to stop that nor even any right to claim the other government shouldn’t be engaged in genocide.

        Lovely premise you got there….

  25. How is it possible for the question of immigration reform could possibly be addressed when there is the lowest participation rate in over 40 years . How could it be possible to invite millions or even hundreds of millions doesn’t anyone understand there are no jobs in America there are no jobs being created in America

    1. what crazy-planet do you live on where you think that ‘reforming’ a completely fucked-up, broken system which allows millions to enter in undocumented fashion must necessarily result in something *worse*?

      I am forced to think of the drug war by analogy:

      your argument would favor keeping in place the abysmal-failed policies of the past, because…? = anything different will be worse! People who never did drugs will suddenly become addicts! Priests will be nodding of in herion delirium from the pulpit. Pre-schoolers will be butt-chugging speedballs… cats and dogs! BILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS!

      There’s no logic to it other than, ‘making something illegal, legal now!’ must somehow necessitate the most retarded dystopian fantasy-world imaginable.

      A small potential upside: we might possibly import some people who can write *sentences*? Its a start.

  26. How can you argue flat-out against the rule of law and call yourself ‘Reason’? You’re also a real condescending prick, too, with you’re absurd “nativist” slurs. It was actually similar condescension and arrogant dismissal of those with abundantly logical reservations about open borders and waving a wand and absolving criminals of their transgressions that drove me out of the GOP when Bush was still in.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.