Immigration

Poor Foreigners Shouldn't Be Political Reformers at Home, They Should Come Here Instead

|

Credit: martnpro / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan has written an article for EconLog titled "I'm Too Busy Fighting Tyranny to Feed My Family," which does a good job of highlighting the absurdity of opponents of increased immigration saying that foreigners in awful conditions should stay where they are and fix their home country rather than try to flee to a wealthy country like the U.S.

Caplan begins his article by describing John, an unemployed political activist who spends much of his time posting and sharing political news on social media and attending political events. John is so dedicated to political activism that his kids are "hungry and ragged."

Caplan then makes a moral point which I hope is obvious to most readers:

I think you'll agree that John is a terrible human being.  Why?  Because his priorities are demented.  Political activism is a luxury.  Before you engage in this luxury, you must satisfy your basic responsibilities to provide for yourself and your family.  

Caplan goes on to rightly point out that some opponents of increased immigration are asking those who live in regrettable situations to do exactly what John is doing:

Why bring this up?  When I point out that would-be immigrants are trying to save themselves and their families from hellish Third World conditions, my critics often respond, "They ought to stay home and try to fix their broken political systems!"  In other words, my critics are admonishing the global poor to heed the example of John the feckless activist.

Thus, suppose Jacques the desperate Haitian father has an opportunity to escape to Miami, where he can shine shoes and send money home to feed his kids.  Instead, he chooses to let his kids go hungry so he stays in Port-au-Prince and fights tyranny with political leaflets and soapbox speeches.  Noble?  No more than John.  The righteous man knows that meeting his family responsibilities is more important than playing Don Quixote.

The article finishes by pointing out that people in poor countries who try to escape to the developed world while trying to provide for their families are doing their home country far more of a service than most political junkies:

What should humble people born into Third World misery do?  Stay the course.  Do your best to provide for your family.  Keep trying to escape to the First World and get the best job you can.  Remember that activism is a luxury if you know what you're talking about—and a pestilence if you don't.  The people who follow this advice aren't just fulfilling their basic responsibilities.  They're doing far more to improve their homelands than the vast majority of political junkies ever will.

I'm glad that Caplan has highlighted the nonsense that is the "stay home and fix your own country" rhetoric sometimes heard among those who oppose increased immigration. Men, women, and children die every year trying to leave their homes. Some drown, others die of thirst and exposure, and some are tortured and killed by traffickers. It's immoral and ignorant to suggest that people who risk such dangerous outcomes while trying to improve their lives and the lives of their family members would be better off back in their home countries being political activists.

Watch Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia outline five reasons why low-skilled immigrants are good for the economy below:

Advertisement

NEXT: House Republicans Split on Moving Ahead on Immigration Reform

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. I feel like this post was written entirely to pimp out Shikha Dalmia.

  2. It’s possible to love your country, your friends and family and culture, and still fight against governmental oppression. Why admonish someone who WANTS to stay and fight?

    1. Because Feeney wants everyone to support amnesty and open borders. The problem is the Americans who get out competed by the new, harder working immigrants won’t be moving to Haiti or some other shit hole to make a new life. They’re just going to be on food stamps and voting for you know who.

      1. Your ignorance and lack of imagination is revealing. The more people working, the more goods produced for more people to buy. The more people want to buy, the more people have to work to produce.

        You act as if people coming here can only replace other workers already here. It’s a pretty pathetic imagination which can’t see beyond that sterile sound bite.

        1. The more people working, the more goods produced for more people to buy. The more people want to buy, the more people have to work to produce.

          The idea that simply adding labor produces resources other people need or want is slightly retarded.

          1. Maybe we should let the market decide that instead of TOP.MEN

          2. The idea that simply adding labor produces resources other people need or want is slightly retarded.

            Just adding labor doesn’t – but labor with capital and entrepreneurs will get utilized. So long as government and others don’t screw it up.

    2. Why admonish someone who WANTS to stay and fight?

      They aren’t. They’re admonishing someone who wants to stay and fight at the expense of their children.

    3. Anyone who ever heard lefties talk about Cuban anti-Communists turning Florida Republican would know that they think the Cubans should go back and fight Castro instead of influencing politics here.

  3. Doesn’t this completely ignore the actual problem? I don’t think most Libertarians are opposed to immigration, but the line might be drawn at illegal immigration. If an immigrant refuses to be a political activist, that is their choice, if they also choose to violate the country’s laws* whom they are escaping to, that is a choice.

    The number of people a nation lets into its borders must be healthy for that nation. If we can have a real article and debate about the number of legal immigrants the US and EU can let into their countries and not become unstable, I think the discourse would be improved.

    *Open borders arguments don’t fall into the morality versus legality category for me.

    1. The number of people a nation lets into its borders must be healthy for that nation.

      If there is a room available for rent or purchase, who cares if a foreigner or an american buys it?

      If you arent the seller, its none of your damn business.

    2. debate about the number of legal immigrants

      All of them.

      Citizenship is a different story, but people have an inalienable right to movement.

      If you believe in property rights, you have to support this. And as probably the weakest believer in property rights (non-nut category) on this board, if I see that, everyone else should to.

      1. We’re not talking about just taking up space though, are we?

        Please don’t start on the “if I define something as this, you have to support it.” Does no one favors.

        Immigration is a complicated issue, and inalienable rights go both ways. Just because you think you should be able to walk on someone’s private property doesn’t mean they won’t shoot your ass.

        We could get into a huge debate about sovereignty and who owns the land and why do they own it, etc. but I don’t think it will change minds. There are a lot of fundamentals going into this, beginning at “How much government should there be?” If we come from different places here, we will never agree on immigration. I’m not any form of anarchist, I think government has a purpose (that it has far exceeded.)

        1. We’re not talking about just taking up space though, are we?

          Pretty much.

          Just because you think you should be able to walk on someone’s private property doesn’t mean they won’t shoot your ass.

          No, the right to movement means with permission of the property owners…trespass is still trespass.

          But **I** own my property, the United States of America doesnt.

          And considering my relative weak views* on property rights, that is telling.

          *I question whether I own the raw land, but if I dont, the government sure as hell doesnt either.

        2. Immigration is a complicated issue, and inalienable rights go both ways. Just because you think you should be able to walk on someone’s private property doesn’t mean they won’t shoot your ass.

          What right does the right of free movement conflict with?

          1. No rights conflict. If they do, then one of them isnt a right.

            1. at least one of them.

            2. Yes, exactly.

            3. If property can be owned, then property boundaries can be enforced – the right of free movement would come in conflict with property rights (even sans any argument about immigration).

        3. Please don’t start on the “if I define something as this, you have to support it.” Does no one favors.

          In this particular case, we are talking about a property rights issue though. Do I, as an owner of an apartment building, have the right to rent an apartment to anyone I please?

          Its a simple question. If you think the answer is yes, then that includes foreigners.

          Do I, as the owner of a house, have the right to sell it to anyone I please?

          If yes, then that also includes foreigners. And baring them from living on their own land seems pretty damn wrong too.

          1. So the right to movement is not inalienable, it’s conditional. If you live in a house, and ten people buy land in a circle surrounding your property and bar you from traveling on their property, are you forever hedged in? Or would you expect a public road to save you?

            1. Helicopter, bitches!

              And stupid hypotheticals are stupid. As Im not an anarchist, Im perfect fine with things like right of ways and safe passage rules.

              Lifeboat dilemmas bore me.

              I also dont push fat men down onto tracks.

              1. I also dont push fat men down onto tracks

                I would, but I’ve got these stubby arms. So no evil utilitarianism for me.

            2. This is like asking whether you can sell yourself into slavery.

              It is awfully hard in common law nations to acquire property without a right of way. But if you are stupid enough and determined enough, you might just manage to.

          2. Once again, if you favor no government at all, we can argue until we’re blue in the face. If I favor a government, made of a group of people on a piece of land, I’m going to assume we won’t agree.

            A government exists to provide an avenue of redress between citizens. If suddenly the majority of people living within a government’s borders are not citizens and do not follow the laws set down by the first group of people to keep their piece of land a place where you have, for instance, great economic prosperity (free markets, yay!), the reason the second group/groups moved in the first place is gone.

            1. if you favor no government at all

              Ummm…

              Im not an anarchist — my at 1:25

              1. Umm, I was writing as you posted.

            2. If I favor a government, made of a group of people on a piece of land

              I disagree that the bolded part is necessary. The concept that governments should be connected to physical land is so last millennium.

              1. You’re kind of a snark machine, so I can only assume you have some sort of personal connection to this issue. I’m not into the emotions of this, so you should argue with someone else. I can only say it seems kind of naive to think a country can have open borders with no ramifications on their legal system or economy.

                1. I can only say it seems kind of naive to think a country can have open borders with no ramifications on their legal system or economy.

                  Of course there are. Legalizing drugs has serious consequences, too. But those consequences don’t override the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.

  4. Maybe. But if your argument for immigration is “hey lets get the best and brightest for America”, you forfeit the right to accuse your opponents of jingoism. I think that is by far the most compelling argument for permissive immigration policies. But it is absolutely a nationalistic and ultimately jingoistic argument.

    1. Good point. And we can always tell them about how great America is by how few Americans move to Haiti or China to start a new life.

      I don’t want to say Mexico now because they may be approaching a turning point with their economy and society. We’ll see, and if they do, I can see some Americans, definitely plenty of Mexican nationals, moving there to work and live.

  5. Poor Foreigners Shouldn’t Be Political Reformers at Home, They Should Come Here Instead

    Mighty big of you Welch, maybe we can try a money bomb to help you out with the cost.

    1. Ooops…this wasn’t Welch

    2. Another brain-dead example of those who can’t imagine that anyone coming here could actually contribute, that they are all welfare leeches.

      1. Poor means little resources. Unless you think poor means the ability to house, feed and travel in a foreign country with no assistance, I’m going to take it you have some reading comprehension issue. I didn’t mention “welfare”, moron.

        1. Are you so intellectually poor that you can’t think of a single person who came here financially poor and enriched both himself and this country?

          It’s a poor mind that can only equate poor with suitcases full of money.

          1. Are you so intellectually poor that you can’t think of a single person who came here financially poor and enriched both himself and this country?

            A single person? Probably. But like desperately poor Americans, most desperately poor foreign immigrants end up the same way. You shouldn’t care if you view it as a moral issue. From a utilitarian standpoint, poor is poor. Poor people tend to be net resource drains, regardless of their origin.

  6. More than nonsense, Matthew Feeney spews foolery and doubles down on the idiocy of Bryan Caplan.

    Absent government, individuals who are strangers to each other enter into voluntary association, which we call society in property, the only society that can form of strangers.

    Who invited these illegal aliens to the association? Were they asked to join in society?

    Should anyone throwing a house party let unwanted strangers come in and swill up all the beer, stomp our their Kools on the hardwood floors?

    And Government has arisen from society codifying law detailing duties and rights. Why should anyone in society of property get duties imposed to support illegal aliens, those not invited? Why should anyone agree that rights should be given to these illegal aliens?

    End welfare programs. End subsidy programs. Open the borders. That is the only order of how to do it. Otherwise, immigration must be a controlled institution to match actuarial realities.

    Feeney and Caplan think like children.

    1. Order doesnt matter. Freedom of movement is an inalienable right.

      1. Freedom of movement is an inalienable right? Sez who?

        Just because you like something doesn’t make it an inalienable right.

        1. It follows from the right of self ownership.

          1. Lets put it another way, if there is no freedom of movement, then the East Germans were not morally wrong to build a wall to keep people in.

            And enforcing it with mines and armed guards follows as morally acceptable too.

            1. if there is no freedom of movement, then the East Germans were not morally wrong to build a wall to keep people in.

              Imprisoning someone in one place is not the same thing as denying them access some place else.

              IE – what the wall accomplished was immoral and it the fact it happened has zero impact on whether freedom of movement is inalienable.

          2. And your right of self ownership ends where mine begins, and my right of self ownership says I don’t want to be responsible for looking after the billions of people who live in crappy places and want to move here.

            1. “My right of self-ownership says I don’t want to be responsible for looking after the millions of people who are slaves in crappy conditions and now want to be free”

              How is this argument any different? Your utility does not override my rights.

              1. What kbolino said.

                And you dont have any legal responsibility to them.

                I, personally, have a moral responsibility, but I wont push that on you.

                1. I’m not able to avoid legal responsibility for those on medicaid, food stamps, long term unemployment benefits, social security disability, and any other welfare measure you can name. I should say, if I avoided responsibility, guys with guns would eventually show up and put me in jail.

                  It is pretty to think that I could avoid legal responsibility for the world’s unhappy people moving here, but experience tells me I wouldn’t be allowed to.

                  1. I’m not able to avoid legal responsibility

                    You arent responsible for the people.

                    You are responsible for paying your taxes, but I will work with you to change that.

                    Its an entirely separate issue. Rights are rights, and the fact the government has fucked up doesnt change that.

                  2. I’m not able to avoid legal responsibility for those on medicaid, food stamps, long term unemployment benefits, social security disability, and any other welfare measure you can name. I should say, if I avoided responsibility, guys with guns would eventually show up and put me in jail.

                    Of course, that’s an excuse for violating all kinds of rights. Live below the poverty line? Mandatory birth control and abortions for you.

                    1. I don’t know where you get the idea that I want to do any of that stuff; I only pointed that we taxpayers are held responsible for the welfare of lots of others.

                      Please eschew putting words in the mouth of a straw man.

              2. “Your utility does not override my rights”.

                I get it, you have “rights” and I have only “utility”.

                1. No, you have the same rights.

                  But you made a utilitarian argument up above.

                  Just dont be responsible for others, problem solved.

                  1. robc, the problem remains, because the welfare state ensures that I am responsible for others. Lots of others. There is a limit somewhere to how many others we can be responsible for, no matter how moral or charitable we try to be.

                    1. It isnt a responsibility. You are being robbed by the government.

                      We can change that, but rights remain rights whether we do or not.

                    2. “We can change that”. Yes, but until we live in the sweet by and by, nice as it is to postulate a better future, we’re stuck with the present situation. And that situation is the incompatibility of open borders and a populist democracy welfare state.

                    3. robc, the problem remains, because the welfare state ensures that I am responsible for others. Lots of others. There is a limit somewhere to how many others we can be responsible for, no matter how moral or charitable we try to be.

                      This exact same argument could be made in favor of Bloomberg’s soda ban.

                      “Well, I would normally be in favor of letting people drink as much soda as they want, but since I might have to pay for their healthcare…”

                    4. The same argument is made in favor of EVERY SINGLE statist proposal.

                      Statists gonna state.

                    5. So is there, in fact, no limit to the welfare expenditures we can support? It would be nice to think so, but I’m not convinced.

                    6. Way to miss the point.

                      If I were to break into your house every week and distribute the contents of your fridge to the people in the neighborhood, you wouldn’t think stopping people from moving in nearby to be a good solution, would you?

                      Of course not, your recourse would be against me, and anyone assisting me in my criminal behaviour.

                    7. If I were to break into your house every week and distribute the contents of your fridge to the people in the neighborhood, you wouldn’t think stopping people from moving in nearby to be a good solution, would you?

                      No. My solution would be to shoot you.

                      And then, imprison every neighbor who profited from your criminal activity.

      2. “Freedom of movement is an inalienable right.

        ~robc

        So, illegal aliens can move in and homestead on your front lawn? In your living room?

        For your thought to adhere to the scrutiny of logical consistency, you are forced to say yes.

        However, in society of property, which is the only society that can exist among strangers and where property always has always only meant the right of ownership and never the thing owned, your beloved illegal aliens and action of movement violates everyone’s property, everyone already in society without your beloved illegal aliens.

        The issue is to reduce the role of government back to defender of any individual and his property against rogues and mobs, both foreign and domestic.

        1. Private property is not analogous in any useful way to national territory.

          1. Says who, you?

            Government grows from men in society of property, the only kind of society that can exist among strangers.

            Territory is merely the boundaries by which men acknowledge other strangers as welcomed participants within their society of property.

            Under self-rule (freedom) individualism, territory arises from customary law.

            Territory isn’t merely lines on a map owned by sovereignty and fought to defend or expand against other sovereigns. That is old-school, divine right of kings silliness from the feudal ages.

            The problem that presents itself is that the U.S. as government, the creature created, has become the Frankenstein monster, terrorizing all.

            Through imposition of duties and rights, in codified law, the people have become controlled in ways that would have not existed under customary law.

            1. Territory is merely the boundaries by which men acknowledge other strangers as welcomed participants within their society of property.

              No. Territory is the boundaries by which men acknowledge that laws and enforcement from outside the territory do not apply.

              That is, sovereignty is all about preventing encroachment by other territories’ laws and enforcement, not by other territories’ goods, services, or people.

              1. Laws are mere convenience. Courts deal in justice, not law. Never is Codified Law necessary for justice.

                Again, so you can get it right this time:

                Territory is merely the boundaries by which men acknowledge other strangers as welcomed participants within their society of property.

                In perception of territory, men acknowledge what customs shall apply when dispute arises in trade of property that shall lead to adjudication through justice.

                Men in society of property are more than willing to acknowledge the limits of their customs upon strangers of other societies. Those limits are known as their territory.

                Again, your way of false believing is the old-school, tribalism way, of sovereignty imposed upon a people by the divine right of rulership.

                1. Territory is merely the boundaries by which men acknowledge other strangers as welcomed participants within their society of property.

                  The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is on the phone. It wants to talk with you.

          2. Private property is not analogous in any useful way to national territory.

            BS – it’s perfectly analogous. If you think not – how many shareholders are there in GE and how much property does GE own?

            Does the fact it’s distributed amongst many people mean neither GE nor the shareholders can protect their property rights?

            Answer – not in the least.

            Sorry – but as much as everyone here tries to make it different – simple fact is freedom of movement, if it is a right, competes directly with property rights. Both cannot be absolute.

            1. In what conceivable way is a corporation with voluntary membership and specifically acquired property analogous to a government with involuntary membership and claims of dominion over an entire territory?

              The former represents private property with wide open rights that are limited only by not infringing on others’ rights. The latter represents sovereign territory that should be governed with specifically delimited powers.

              Furthermore, a critical component of the common law bundle of rights over property is that the property may be reached by right of way.

              The claim that government can legitimately prohibit individuals’ free movement along rights of way based on private property arguments is utterly unfounded.

        2. So, are you just pretending to not understand what freedom of movement means, or what?

          1. So, are you just pretending to not understand what freedom of movement means, or what?

            Its entirely possible he is really that dumb.

            Like the progs who say “But if I have freedom I should have the freedom to tax you”.

          2. Freedom of movement means that I could move to Prague or Vienna this afternoon without filing papers with the Czechs or Austrians, and not have to pay taxes in the USA and overseas at the same time and, should I wish to prevent double taxation by renouncing my citizenship, not have a large portion of my savings confiscated by the US government.

            I’ll go for open borders in the USA when anyplace I’d like to move to has open borders as well.

            1. I’ll go for open borders in the USA when anyplace I’d like to move to has open borders as well.

              People say the same thing about tariffs.

              But there is objective evidence (for those like you who prefer utilitarian solutions) that unilaterally lowering tariffs is good for the people of the country that lowers them and bad for the people of the country that keeps them.

              And yet, the same argument is constantly applied there too.

              “We can lower tariffs when the EU lowers theres!”

              Its bullshit.

              Do the right thing and maybe your moral example will show the other countries the right way to behave. Shining City on the Hill and all that.

              I would love for America to be the Shining Libertarian City on the Hill for the world to see.

              1. s/theres/theirs/

        3. So, illegal aliens can move in and homestead on your front lawn? In your living room?

          For your thought to adhere to the scrutiny of logical consistency, you are forced to say yes.

          That is the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said on this thread.

          That doesnt follow at all. Freedom of movement doesnt grant anyone the right to move onto any property they want, only property they are allowed to move onto/across (subject to possible common law right-of-way exceptions). Property rights and movement rights arent in conflict at all. What Im saying is that nations have no property rights.

          1. Because you widdle mind can’t think straight and your opinions fail upon logical scrutiny, suddenly the lens of logic becomes “That is the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said on this thread.”.

            LOLZ. Enjoy your rather bad case of cognitive dissonance.

            Clearly, you know nothing about jurisprudence and the anthropological implication of individualism and society following therefrom.

            You’re like most people. You have opinion without any basis, the same as idealistic 15 year olds.

          2. In libertopia – 98% of all property is likely private – including roads.

            Would it be ok for them to stop trespassers?

            Or would it be the case in libertopia that private road owners are considered “public” because they generally let the public in (just like restaurants today….)?

            If not – you’re advocating the idea the US federal government not control borders, whereas in libertopia, those borders would likely be more controlled.

        4. property always has always [sic] only meant the right of ownership and never the thing owned

          What is the purpose of this distinction? Who possesses the right of ownership?

          Your definition of “always” differs from mine. Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 says:

          “PROPERTY, n.

          6. The thing owned; that to which a person has the legal title, whether in his possession or not. It is one of the greatest blessings of civil society that the property of citizens is well secured.”

          1. When it comes to understanding property, you are jurisprudentially retarded.

            Any dictionary editor will tell you that a dictionary is mere collection of usages bound in a product geared to a reading level.

            Webster’s is a kid’s dictionary.

            Why don’t you use the Internet productively and study the history of the word property? Why not learn what the Roman jurists said it to be, since, you know, they coined the word.

            Why don’t you read Blackstone’s LEGAL DICTIONARY used as a definitive source for Anglo-American jurisprudence and law, for you know, more than 100 years?

            Why don’t you read states’ supreme court cases on what American jurists have said property is, such as the Supreme Court of Illinois:

            “Property in its broader sense is not the physical thing which maybe be subject of ownership, but is the right of dominion, possess and power of disposition which may be acquired over it; and the right of property preserved by the Constitution is the right not only to possess and enjoy it, but also to acquire it in any lawful mode, or by following any lawful industrial pursuit, which the citinzen in exercise of liberty guaranteed may choose to adopt.”

            1. Right – so if I say owned all of the border between the US & Mexico, say a several hundred miles along New Mexico, Arizona, etc – a hundred miles wide…

              Since I have “domain” over property I own, even though it’s not a physical thing, I can still, rightfully in your eyes, stop people from trespassing on my property can I not?

              And how does that differ if instead of one owner – you have many?

              Disclaimer: I am completely pro-free trade and include labor in that – just do not believe for a second that freedom of movement is absolute. As freedom of movement would require access by others – which I recall was once called a positive right in libertarian circles and generally eschewed… but here we are in the New Libertarian Party?.

              Where any disagreement on immigration stance is by a bunch of immoral bigots.

              Reminds me of how liberals treat any disagreement with Obama – call ’em racists, ignore them, and move on.

              Not a hard path to follow, but ultimately intellectually lazy.

        5. So, illegal aliens can move in and homestead on your front lawn? In your living room?

          YAWN!

          Nothing like being passive-aggressive and changing the subject.

          Either that or you are so stupid you don’t even know the meanings of words pertinent to the subject you want to discuss.

      3. I’m curious to know where this idea about ‘freedom of movement’ being a primary liberty or an unalienable right 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?

        1. Ummm…what does any of that have to do with freedom of movement.

          In nature, humans (we are talking about human rights, not animal rights — whether or not animals have rights is a huge can of worms) have freedom of movement. They may get eaten if they move to the wrong place, but freedom aint free.

          1. In nature, humans do not now and have never had freedom of movement. Save for the very earliest humans, whose movement only conflicted with animals, human movement has routinely met with resistence from other humans who claimed the territory.

            As you note–They may get eaten if they move to the wrong place–movement, for humans, comes at a price.

            So where does the idea come from that it should be free?

            1. I’m almost afraid to see your answer, but I’ll ask anyway…

              Where does the idea that one shouldn’t be killed come from?

              1. Well, one doesn’t want to be killed. One will defend ones’ life.

                But you don’t have a right to not be killed.

                1. Yeah, I don’t think this is the right site for you if you think someone doesn’t have the right to not be killed.

                  1. You have, simply by existing, the ‘right’ to life.

                    But how can you have a ‘right’ that dictates what some random other person does?

                    And do you not have the ‘right’ to kill yourself?

                    So you don’t have the ‘right’ to not be killed.

                    Right is the wrong word here–that’s why I keep putting it in quotes.

                    You’ve got the right to life, the right to defend yourself–so you can keep someone from killing you and be within your rights.

                    But that’s not ‘the right to not be killed’, do you get what I’m saying?

            2. As you note–They may get eaten if they move to the wrong place–movement, for humans, comes at a price.

              That same argument applies to every single right. I can be killed in my sleep, in my own territory, for no reason at all.

        2. The naturalistic fallacy. Really?

          They defend the territory they claim.

          Okay, apparently this needs to be posted in every immigration thread, so here we go:

          NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY
          NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY
          NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY
          NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY
          NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY

          1. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ABOLISHING PRIVATE PROPERTY

            Actually, the anti-immigrationists are.

            Private property includes my right to sell it to whomever I please. And the right to travel to my property. Say they are talking about abolishing private property.

            1. I wish cognitive dissonance would actually make people’s heads explode. Way easier than convincing them.

            2. I agree with that, but I don’t think freedom of movement has anything to do with your right as a property owner to sell to whomever you want.

              That is freedom of association, freedom of trade (which isn’t an absolute right for some reason).

              Freedom of movement is ability to move where one wants – that simply isn’t true in any sense of the word.

              For instance – I may well want to live in the Caribbean or the richest part of NYC or where ever, but without the funds or in some cases, without the invite, I cannot.

              Maybe it’s 1750 and I want to live in CA. Since my freedom of movement is absolute, what happens when I die on the way?

              Did the government hurt my right to freedom of movement by not providing safe passage?

              It seems to be just me… but freedom of movement seems to be to be a positive right in that it requires access which in libertopia would be completely privately owned and controlled.

              Note again – I’m not anti-immigration and assume if all land were privately held in the US, there would likely be more freedom of movement than exists now – but this contention that nations are never allowed to control their borders is asinine (unless you are an anarchist).

              On a small level, a nation is nothing more than a group of people getting together to centralize some functions like national defense and border control.

              From that perspective – how does one individual have the ability to stop trespassers but hundreds of millions of combined owners do not?

              1. From that perspective – how does one individual have the ability to stop trespassers but hundreds of millions of combined owners do not?

                If all the owners of all the property in the nation unanimously elected to prohibit new people entering, you have a point.

                Unfortunately for your argument, that point kind of loses steam when the nation’s population gets higher than ten or fifteen.

              2. Did the government hurt my right to freedom of movement by not providing safe passage?

                No more than it hurt your right to life.

                The right to life is the right not to have the government take your life. The right to liberty is the right not to have the government abrogate your liberty. The right to property is the right not to have the government take your property. The right to free movement is the right not to have the government prevent your free movement.

                Is this difficult?

        3. This is the argument for the natural origins of property.

          It has no bearing whatsoever on governments’ abrogating free movement between or among properties.

          1. But where does the idea that free movement is a right come from?

            That’s my question.

            1. If you don’t believe in the right not to be killed, what’s the point of discussing — or indeed of having — rights?

          2. In libertopia – the spaces between and among properties would be private land.

            In the US – while it’s public, one could, and should, make the argument that in fact the land is all owned by the shareholders in the US, normally know as its citizens.

            How – by the mere fact some people got together to centralize some societal functions – did all those people give up the ability to stop trespassers?

            & how would they not have the right in that case – but if instead of using “a government” they just split up the land equally, they would still retain the right to stop trespassers?

        4. It doesn’t occur in nature.

          Neither does the right to life or liberty. I guess you could say pursuit of happiness is recognized through mere existence.

          1. Well, the ‘right’ to life precedes any other right–if you don’t have it, the rest are moot.

            And, technically, the pursuit of happiness is included in ‘liberty’

            And liberty most definitely occurs in nature.

            1. What in the world? Just 5 minutes before this you said nobody has a right to not be killed.

    2. Society doesn’t have property rights, only individuals do.

      1. Exactly, just like states dont have rights but powers.

      2. And where above has anyone said “society” has X, such as society has property rights?

        Society is a relationship, not a people. Never (again) conflate the word society with “people, nation, a country.”

        A people can be IN SOCIETY but never do they constitute “a society”.

        By the way, saying property rights is akin to saying ‘property property’ or ‘rights rights’. Property means right of ownership. It doesn’t mean land or anything owned.

        1. Hey you’re the moron going on about society and a “society of property.” If I want to invite someone from Mexico onto my property and/or employ them it is none of your or society’s business.

          1. Let’s get this straight. You believe that property means a parcel of land and not the right of ownership of that parcel, but I am the “moron”?

            LOLZ. OK. Get back to us when you mature. Start by picking up a work on theoretical, civil jurisprudence, that is, if you possess an intellect suitably sufficient to understand anything that you read.

      3. Society doesn’t have property rights, only individuals do.

        Bullshit.

        All society is, in the US’s case, a collection of people who utilize an agreed upon “government” for certain centralized functions. If solely because they decided to associate with a government those individuals magically lost the right to stop trespassers then no corporation anywhere would have property rights either.

        The idea that simply by agreeing to do something as a group you have lost your ability to protect your property is ludicrous.

        If individuals have property rights – then so do groups of individuals.

        & in a free society, the society itself is nothing but a group of individuals.

    3. Why should anyone agree that rights should be given to these illegal aliens?

      We’re libertarians here for the most part. We don’t believe that rights are given at all, they are inherent in individuals regardless of where they happened to be born.

      And the whole country is not common property. I have the right to allow anyone I want to come to my house party.


      1. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

        I dont see anything about giving rights to anyone or only Americans having rights or etc.

        1. Exactly. It is part of the very nature of natural rights that they are universal.

          1. Just to be clear, that was meant for Smack but in response to you seemed the right place to put it.

      2. As long as they stay at your house party and don’t crash mine, I’m fine with that.

        1. Nobody has said anything about abolishing property rights.

          1. Nobody has said anything about abolishing property rights.

            So what – the fact you’re acting as if property rights aren’t infringed at all by freedom of movement does not mean that’s the case.

            The truth: freedom of movement comes into direct conflict with property rights.

    4. Who invited these illegal aliens to the association? Were they asked to join in society?

      Who invited these native-born socialists to the association?

      Should anyone throwing a house party let unwanted strangers come in and swill up all the beer, stomp our their Kools on the hardwood floors?

      Unwanted by whom? You steal my money, throw a party I don’t want, and then tell me I can’t invite my own guests?

      Why should anyone in society of property get duties imposed to support illegal aliens, those not invited?

      Why should I have to pay for your invitees in the first place?

      Why should anyone agree that rights should be given to these illegal aliens?

      Given? GIVEN? Rights are not party tricks like voting or welfare. Rights are not handed out like political favors to favored classes. They are, and the government can either recognize them or not.

      Otherwise, immigration must be a controlled institution to match actuarial realities.

      Like drugs are controlled? Like guns are controlled? The fallacy of your “control” is that it doesn’t work! Your whole position is a red herring, because it doesn’t actually exist.

      Those lines on a map don’t exist in the real world. People walk across them all the time. The real question is, why is walking across an imaginary line a crime?

    5. Who invited these illegal aliens to the association? Were they asked to join in society?

      Should anyone throwing a house party let unwanted strangers come in and swill up all the beer, stomp our their Kools on the hardwood floors?

      […]

      Feeney and Caplan think like children.

      Uh huh.

  7. Oh good, an immigration thread.

  8. I don’t think most people resent immigrants for fleeing failed states. That’s a completely understandable thing to do. It’s their adherence to failed Third World ideologies that is baffling and problematic.

    Their penchant for flouting the law and then marching around in the streets, waving foreign flags and demanding things is also a tad galling.

    1. waving foreign flags and demanding things is also a tad galling.

      There’s about 30,000 who can’t wave flags because their hands are holding rifles. But they have the Stars and Stripes on their shoulders, even if it’s the subdued version. They couldn’t make it to a protest, because they’re deployed.

      I bet you there are more serving in the US military then there are marching in the streets demanding free shit.

      1. [std]
        Immigration comes with a mandatory term in the military? Hmmmm….
        [/std]

        I felt I want a little Heinlein for a minute there.

        1. sld not std, although probably that too.

          1. I think it’s a fast track to citizenship. But I don’t think military service should be mandatory.

            I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

            -RAH

            1. It wasnt mandatory in my post, it was a requirement for entrance, which is different.

              And I did brace it with standard libertarian disclaimers and/or sexually transmitted diseases.

              1. Yeah these threads are weird for me, because I honestly don’t care who comes and lives and works here, but I do worry about a large influx of generally socialist voters.

                Of course in my ideal world the government is tiny, and funded entirely by poll taxes. If you want to vote, you can put money in the treasury. If you don’t want to put money in the treasury, you don’t get to decide how it’s spent.

                1. Yeah these threads are weird for me, because I honestly don’t care who comes and lives and works here, but I do worry about a large influx of generally socialist voters.

                  I distinguish between immigration and citizenship.

                  Open immigration but restricted citizenship is fine by me. And if we want to amend the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship, I wouldnt oppose it.

                  There is no fundamental natural law right to citizenship.

                  1. Yesterday I was told that to deny voting to legal or illegal residents was like slavery. But immigration is voluntary, is it not?

    2. How many actual immigrants are waving flags and marching, though? Those ones are very visible, but my impression is that most just want to do honest work, keep a low profile and make some money. If that were an easier thing for everyone to do, regardless of citizenship, the benefits of freedom relative to third world socialism might become more apparent.

      1. If there are 12 million* illegals, it’s pretty galling to smear them all on the actions of a few hundred that march every now and then.

        *maybe that number is wrong now, or always was wrong, but it’s still in the millions; that’s far, far more than the number of protestors

        1. If there are 12 million* illegals, it’s pretty galling to smear them all on the actions of a few hundred that march every now and then.

          The marches from 2006 in L.A. alone brought out half a million people, not a few hundred.

    3. Their penchant for flouting the law and then marching around in the streets, waving foreign flags and demanding things is also a tad galling.

      Are you sure that the people who fled failed states are the same people who march around waving flags and demanding things?

  9. Do we hate them because we fear them, or do we fear them because we hate them?

    I can never keep that straight.

    1. Our government uses them (illegal immigrants) as leverage against us (US citizens and legal immigrants). I don’t hate immigrants – all of our ancestors were immigrants, obviously, but I do hate our government.

    2. Ah, “hate” and “fear”, the classic progressive pejoratives that pass for logic.

      Somebody once said that libertarians are only liberals with a better vocabulary, and occasionally I’m given to wonder if this might be so.

  10. Political activism is a luxury in the First world, it’s a requirement in the Third.

  11. “Caplan then makes a moral point which I hope is obvious to most readers:”

    God I fucking hate Freeney. What kind of sanctimonious bullshit is this? Go fuck yourself. It’s not “obvious” that kids are more important than political activism. It’s obvious is that it depends on how important the political issue at hand is.

    1. kids in general may not be more important than political activism, but one’s own children certainly are.

      1. That’s the important distinction. Society at large has no obligation to your children, but you certainly do.

    2. It’s for the children.

    3. I guess the point wasn’t obvious, because you missed it.

  12. I used to be a “fix welfare firster”, but I realized that rights dont work that way.

    Rights are rights, and there is no utilitarian argument against rights.

  13. How come immigration threads always seem to bring in a whole bunch of new users that Ive never seen before?

    1. Freedom of movement?

      *raises gloved fist

    2. It raises the hackles of conservative lurkers.

  14. The problem for any clear-sighted libertarian is that immigrants are largely anti-libertarian. By large margins, they support big government, Obamacare, gun control, affirmative action, and the welfare state. They think international law should trump the Constitution. So even if the “end the welfare state and open the borders” proposal happened, the new immigrants would push the entire country leftwards, and the welfare state would come back with a vengeance.

    Open borders is suicide for libertarianism in the US, but hey, supporters can pat themselves on the back for ideological consistency, while they watch all the rest of their libertarian principles buried.

    1. supporters can pat themselves on the back for ideological consistency, while they watch all the rest of their libertarian principles buried.

      So no different than the current state of affairs? Gotcha.

      Principles are all that matter. If I give them up, now I have nothing of value.

      1. “Principles are all that matter.”

        As long as nobody uses force to impose the consequences of your principles on those who disagree with them, I’m fine with that statement.

        1. consequences

          Be very careful…because if you say increased welfare payments are a consequence of immigration then you are a bigger idiot than Smack up above.

          They are a consequence of congressional policy. Full stop.

          1. To me, this hairsplitting doesn’t matter.

            1. To me, the principle is what matters.

              I put the blame where it belongs, on congress.

      2. Principles are all that matter. If I give them up, now I have nothing of value.

        Yeah, but my point is that if you have a set of libertarian principles on numerous issues, by interpreting “freedom of movement” as “open borders no matter what” you are working against all of your other libertarian principles. That doesn’t strike you as problematic?

        One of the core problems with any ideology is that they are all maps, not the territory. They are all incomplete, and when people try to make them perfectly, 100% consistent, they all tie themselves into logical and practical absurdities. IMO, immigration is perhaps the main flaw in American libertarianism. (It’s not a flaw in, say, Japanese libertarianism, because hundreds of millions of people don’t want to move to Japan.)

        1. you are working against all of your other libertarian principles.

          No, Im not.

          The all fit together just fine.

          You are arguing utility, not principle. Which principle goes away if open borders exist?

          The principles stay the same, even if they stop being applied.

          1. So then you are devoted to your principles, regardless of their real-world effects? That’s absurd, I’m sorry. The whole point of libertarian principles is to create liberty in the real world. What you are saying is that you don’t care if libertarian ideas A-Y happen in the real world, as long as principle Z is upheld. This is the equivalent of saying that you don’t believe in A-Y.

            E.g., if you don’t believe in big government, you should not support things that lead to big government. If you do, you are far more inconsistent in your libertarian principles (and much less of a libertarian) than I am, because I am willing to compromise on Z for the sake of A-Y, while you are willing to destroy A-Y for the sake of Z.

        2. It’s funny how socialism’s rise in the US starts right after we started closing the borders, no?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..on_Service

          Would you like to explain that one?

          1. One reason for immigration law in the old days was to keep out “anarchists” and other undesirable political types. (Though I grant it wasn’t the main reason AFAIK.) Socialism was in the air in those days, and indeed, many early American Marxist socialists were immigrants. The idea that socialism was a foreign ideology was not entirely unfounded.

            Today, the problem is mass immigration from countries that are much more explicitly leftist in their political culture. They show up here, enter our welfare state, the left-wing public schools, and become reliable voters for the Democratic party. Heck, even Asian immigrants tend to support affirmative action, which actually works against them.

    2. This is the essential angst of the issue. Our government can surely be worse.

    3. By large margins, they support big government, Obamacare, gun control, affirmative action, and the welfare state.

      Bunkum.

      1. You say “Bunkum”, I say “show me why it’s bunkum”.

      2. “While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.”

        According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

        Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

        Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government — also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

    4. The problem for any clear-sighted libertarian is that immigrants are largely anti-libertarian.

      So don’t give them the franchise. If they can’t vote, what’s the problem?

      1. But then progressives and libertarians will start shouting that voting is a natural and inalienable right and they get the franchise.

        Don’t be silly.

        1. Libertarians won’t, because it’s not.

        2. Very nice of you to tell us what we’d get on about.

        3. Progressives certainly will. And I’m not happy about what could be considered an official second class of citizens.

    5. Yes Papaya, tell us more about how white Americans are a bunch of hardcore libertarians. That’s why this country is just doing great.

      1. Straw man. Libertarians are still a relatively small percentage. I just don’t want them to become an even smaller percentage, which massive immigration is doing.

        1. As libertarians are such small percentage, I don’t see the point in quibbling over maintaining a 7% share instead of 5% (I’m making those numbers up, but you get the point). We need to make inroads in all segments of the population. One of the things about libertarianism is that it requires principles. People don’t have fewer rights just because they disagree with you.

          1. As libertarians are such small percentage

            And the main influence they have is within the GOP.

            People don’t have fewer rights just because they disagree with you.

            Yeah, but what about when those people vote to take away your rights? You do know the Democratic party wants to take away a bunch of rights, correct? Giving Democrats more voters just makes that process easier.

            Yes, we all have issues with the GOP, but they aren’t itching for gun control or single payer and a lot else the Dems would love to impose.

  15. Why focus on John and Jacques, who let their kids starve while they pursue political activism? What about Guillaume, Ivan, Nassar, and Dave who manage to feed their kids AND pursue political activism?

    Contrived situation leaves only a contrived rationalization.

    1. Because… we’re talking about John and Jacques, who have a greater interest in fleeing to America.

  16. “I had to abandon free market libertarian principles by expanding the size and scope of government in order to save the free market system individuals from government.” ~George W. Bush Every Liberal-Libertine Masquerading as a Libertarian by Championing the Cause of Illegal Aliens

    No authentic libertarian champions expanding the size and scope of government. Advocating for illegal aliens, people who, though have heart-tugging stories, supporting more law whereby politicians impose more duties and rights against the currently subjugated populace is DEFINITIVELY ANTI-LIBERTARIAN.

    End welfare. End subsidy. Once done, then you can open the borders because you can ERASE THE BORDERS.

    1. End welfare. End subsidy. Once done, then you can open the borders because you can ERASE THE BORDERS.

      You cannot erase the borders. The borders serve the vital purpose of keeping other government’s worse laws and enforcement out of the US. This would be true even if the US was an anarchy.

    2. End welfare. End subsidy. Once done, then you can open the borders because you can ERASE THE BORDERS.

      End welfare. End subsidy. Once done, then you can let people drink as much soda as they want.

    3. You are spewing lots of nonsense, but bolding it does not make it less nonsensical.

      How is abandoning my principle–the freedom to engage in trade and association with the people of my choosing–to serve your agenda supposed to advance my cause?

      What on Earth is “libertine” about supporting the free exchange of goods and ideas? Apparently the morally upright position is state control.

      If “immigrants” so overwhelmingly believe in the welfare state, then they’ll just vote it back into existence when they get here.

      If we’re talking about political realities, you can’t “erase the borders”. Mexico and Canada, at the least, are not likely to jump on the bandwagon and will continue to have borders.

      If you want to end the welfare state, why are you so concerned about its solvency?

      1. Every subversive movement of the left has their useful idiots. When it comes to illegal aliens and licenses for gay marriage, Reasonoids become those USEFUL IDIOTS.

        When Reasonoids Become Useful Idiots

        Enjoy being one and suffering your bouts with cognitive dissonance when faced with reality.

    4. You know, when I read your first sentence, I thought you were a pro-open borders person making a snarky remark about closed-borders people. Because your logic actually applies to yourself. Unless you think that all the border security measures, a Constitution-free zone, control of movement, control of hiring, renting, and selling, etc. does not constitute expanding the size and scope of government.

      Your argument applies to everything? Want to have more kids? Only if you make a certain amount of money, because otherwise I have to pay for them. Want to do drugs? Well that makes you more likely to commit crime or end up on welfare, so no. Want to own a gun? You might shoot me, so no. Want to smoke, or eat unhealthy food or drink soda? I might have to pay for your health care, so no.

      1. First sentence of the second paragraph shouldn’t have a question mark btw

    5. Wow, I’ve never seen such a reversal. I was sure the quote was going to be for a Conservative Masquerading as a Libertarian. Weird, wild stuff.

      I don’t see how letting people move more freely is abandoning libertarian principles.

  17. I see the nativist are here with the usual derp.

    Get it through your heads: government only has the right to keep out terrorists, criminals, spies, and the dangerously contagious. Everyone else MUST be admitted quickly.

    1. We’ve certainly been admitting some of them very quickly indeed.

      Let’s give those who get off airplanes the same chance at amnesty as those who cross the Southern border. Get rid of the INS lines at the airports and let anyone who comes in walk uninspected out the airport door.

      1. Maybe if it wasn’t so hard to come here legally, people wouldn’t move here illegally.

        Just like every other prohibition, prohibition of movement has its “unintended” consequences that are worse than whatever you’re trying to prevent. If it was easy and legal to move here for temporary work, a lot of immigrants would do that instead of living here permanently and bringing their families, because of how difficult and dangerous it can be to come here illegally.

        1. “Maybe if it wasn’t so hard to come here legally, people wouldn’t move here illegally.”

          Actually, I’m all in favor of simplifying immigration law (including removing country-based quotas) and applying it promptly and consistently to all applicants. But I want equal treatment for all nationalities and occupations.

          1. I agree with that too. I just don’t judge people who come here to make a better life for themselves and/or their families just because they’re violating insane laws (I mean, I think everyone on every side of the immigration issue thinks the current system is fucked) and were things simpler, the problem you described in your earlier post would be much less prominent.

            1. The current system is only “fucked” because it’s not being enforced.

              It’s quite simple, really. Mandate that any employer who hires a criminal alien, or anyone who rents lodgings to them, be fined $1000 per day per criminal alien. At the same time, announce any criminal alien apprehended will spend two years at hard labor on bread-and-water living in a tent city in the Arizona desert and forfeit all property. Erect a wall of lead on the border (shoot invaders). Video record the kills, and transmit them to Mexico 24/7/365 with the message that “this is what awaits those who invade our country”.

              Give all the criminal aliens currently here 6 months to clear out before beginning enforcement action, even provide free bus service to the border – then apply the rules without exception.

              The immigration problem will be solved in 4 months.

        2. What? Hispanics love walking through the desert, hiring people to smuggle them, etc. They’d do it whether they had to or not!

          1. Know what, I’ll bet people from Albania to Zimbabwe would walk through a desert too, if there was a desert for them to walk through that would get them here.

      2. Get rid of the INS lines at the airports and let anyone who comes in walk uninspected out the airport door.

        Nearly half of all illegal immigrants present in the US are on overstayed visas. So that’s more or less exactly how they got here.

    2. When did the contagious lose their rights?

      1. And who’s a terrorist, and what’s a spy, and what defines a “criminal” — conviction for opposing Dear Leader in North Korea?

  18. The goal should be to end the power of men who control government to decide who is illegal and who is not illegal.

    Rendering amnesty to today’s crop of illegal aliens does nothing for future illegal aliens. Without doubt, amnesty does not shrink the size and scope of government to becoming a mere tool for men in society of property.

    Instead, rendering amnesty grows the size and scope of government, cementing power ever further, further pushing along America into a neo-Rome. But if you are praying for collapse of this neo-Rome, it won’t happen in your lifetime.

    Support for amnesty is support for ever encroaching power of government as superior to society rather than its proper role, subordinate to it.

    Support for amnesty fails to strike at the root ? welfare and immigration is a means to power and power is the means to control.

    Any authentic libertarian seeks first to rein in the reign of government over men in society of property. Any other action is anti-libertarian.

    The many of you who count yourselves as Reasonoids might struggle with the foregoing, but that is because cognitive dissonance has sent you into rage over what you can see is truth but what has been drilled into your heads repeatedly, your Reason Mag indoctrination.

  19. You know that 2.4 BILLION people world-wide make less than the average Mexican, don’t you, Matthew? Maybe they should ALL move to AMERICA, increasing the population 8-fold! Sounds good to me, Matthew! But since we don’t currently have the infrastructure to house or feed, or educate 8 people per American, could you forward your address, Matthew, so that we can tell the first 8 of the refugees where to go for free food, free lodging, free clothing and free job training? Because, I know you, Matthew, will want to pay for that right away and welcome them to America because, well, it’s your idea, right?

  20. Mr. Feeney

    I suggest you open your eyes and observe the damage these hero’s of yours are doing to America. They are busy creating a Mexico right here in America. As the population of illegal aliens increases the American economy becomes weaker and weaker.

    Providing housing, food, education, healthcare, earned income tax refunds for people who do not work and welfare checks to illegal aliens does not contribute to a sovereign country.

    As Ms. Thatcher stated; “the trouble with socialism is sooner or later it runs out of other peoples money”.

    That is what is happening to America.

    frjm

  21. Matthew Feeney is a child sex abuser. Truth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.