Immigration

The GOP's Botched Plan on Immigration and Welfare

Poised to take the Senate, Republicans spurn newcomers while embracing handouts, surveilance for natives.

|

Note: This article originally appeared at The Daily Beast on February 5, 2014. Read the original by clicking here.

As political momentum in Washington, D.C. swings toward tackling immigration reform, the Republican Party once again is ready to squander a mighty electoral advantage heading into the 2014 midterms. The general failure of President Obama's economic agenda, health-care reform, civil liberties record, and foreign policy is an electoral gift. Yet with a Senate majority in plain sight, the GOP faithful is crying that  "Amnesty=Suicide" and Republican leaders are calling for massively invasive new rules that will only increase the size, scope, and spending of the federal government.

And this is the party of small government? No wonder the country is so screwed.

Gone is the inclusive immigration rhetoric of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) – "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you." – and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) – "People come here and they assimilate, they adapt, they go to work" – replaced with rants about multi-lingual Coca-Cola ads and the need for "Border Security and Interior Enforcement" and "Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement."

Good luck with that. Republicans insist that the federal government is too inefficient and incompetent to deliver the mail or to oversee health care, but it's nonetheless qualified to police thousands of miles of borders and run employment checks on hundreds of millions of workers? Come on guys, get your story straight.

The simple fact, one that Republicans should embrace, is that governments don't really control aggregate immigration flows any more than they control aggregate consumer demand. Immigration is the result of far larger forces than even totalitarian governments can control, including economic opportunity in the destination country and material conditions in the home country. The Great Depression, World War II, and the reconstruction of post-war Europe ended immigration flows from Western and Southern Europe far more effectively than racist national-origins laws passed by Congress in the 1920s. Similarly, immigration between Mexico and the United States waxes and wanes depending on large macro forces that neither country's government  can really dictate.

Which isn't to say that government policy has no affect on immigration. It's just that it's virtually impossible to predict or anticipate. Hence, immigration scholars say that the tightening of border security in the wake of the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms didn't stop Mexicans from entering the U.S. as much as it keeps them from returning. "The perverse effect has been to dramatically lower return migration out of the country," Princeton's Douglas S. Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, a longitudinal survey of more than 18,000 migrants, told the San Francisco Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead in 2006. "We've transformed what was before 1986 a circular flow of workers into an increasingly settled population of families. We have actually accelerated the rate of undocumented population growth in the United States and shifted it from a less costly population of male workers into a much more costly population of families."

But don't worry, this time the feds will get everything right! Especially by creating an even-more militarized border and internal-checkpoint system to clampdown on workers who do jobs nobody else will take. And with an E-Verify program that is not only riddled with errors that will capture "real" Americans along with "fake" Americans (who nonetheless pay income, sales, and FICA taxes in large amounts) but will also transform employers into agents of a national security state. That's a great limited-government outcome, isn't it?

Rather than fixating on immigration as pressing national issue – Gallup finds that a whopping 3 percent of Americans identify "Immigration/Illegal Aliens" as "the most important problem facing this country today" – Republicans would do far better to tout the clear economic and civil-liberties benefits of expanded immigration and guest-worker policies. The Cato Institute, for instance, has found that immigration reform along the lines of recent Senate proposals would add $1.5 trillion to GDP over a decade.

As important, such reforms would allow immigration officers to cast a smaller net and spend their time weeding out criminals rather than trying to account for all workers at all times. And if the GOP is actually interested in wooing Hispanic voters and moderate independents, it would do well to emulate the attitudes and policies toward immigrants of Texas pols such as former President George W. Bush and Gov. Rick Perry, who managed to pull 40 percent or more of Latino voters in state and national elections.

As important, the GOP should use the immigration debate to address the ridiculous and relentless growth of the welfare state among good old American natives. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, a staunch proponent of free markets, once famously said, "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state." Immigration into America is far from free, of course, but at least since 1996, immigrants' access to means-tested welfare programs is severely limited. The real problem, then, isn't with newcomers but programmatic expansion for citizens. For all the ugly talk of President Obama as "the food-stamp president," that title should properly be shared with George W. Bush. Between 2000 and 2006, spending on food stamps doubled despite unemployment rates around 4 percent. When it comes to disability claims, the Bush and Obama trends are also more alike than not. Unless the 21st century is somehow mangling its workers at higher rates than in the 20th, it's clear that increased disability payouts have everything to do with looser qualification standards ushered in by Bush and extended by Obama.

When it comes to yet again extending unemployment-insurance benefits – another policy begun under Bush – Republicans are on totally solid ground to say that continual extensions provide "some disincentive" to work (so sayeth Politifact). At the very least, the GOP should insist that any and all extensions be paid for by offsets elsewhere in a federal budget that approaches $4 trillion a year.

In his masterful Crisis and Leviathan, economic historian Robert Higgs writes of a "ratchet effect" by which government spending and intervention jerk up periodically and then get stuck out at heightened levels that become the new normal. In the 21st century, that's exactly what's been happening, as the country, first under Republican and then Democratic control, lurched from one crisis to another. The results – from the PATRIOT Act through Obama's stimulus plan – have led only to a government that's more intrusive in every aspect of our lives.

Most recently, in late 2008 and early 2009 – a period in which spending authority was shared by Presidents Bush and Obama – real federal outlays shot up to around $10,000 per capita and show no signs of coming down anytime soon. Indeed, budget deals these days seem to be little more than bi-partisan raids on proposed spending reductions such as the sequester.

If Republicans are really the party of free trade and limited government – and if they really believe in American exceptionalism and the lure of the Shining City Upon a Hill – they'll take this opportunity to welcome immigrants while rolling back the welfare state.

Note: This article originally appeared at The Daily Beast on February 5, 2014. Read the original by clicking here.

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on California's Bullying Food Rules

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. Good luck with that. Republicans insist that the federal government is too inefficient and incompetent to deliver the mail or to oversee health care, but it’s nonetheless qualified to police thousands of miles of borders and run employment checks on hundreds of millions of workers?

    And Nick pulls out the same old tired canard once again. One that fails to work for two reasons:

    (1) the same “argument” could apply to any government function, so by his logic the GOP must be anarchists to be consistent with small government.

    (2) Nick isn’t concerned with increasing the efficiency of “policing thousands of miles borders, etc”, he doesn’t want it done at all. When a state government (Arizona) or a group of private citizens (remember the Minutemen?) tries to help do this job, he’s the first one calling for their heads.

    Same old tired trick from the libertarian playbook: declare impossible the thing that you don’t want to do for ideological reasons.

    1. Republicans insist that the federal government is too inefficient and incompetent to deliver the mail or to oversee health care, but it’s nonetheless qualified to police thousands of miles of borders and run employment checks on hundreds of millions of workers

      False dichotomy, strawman, overgeneralization…that quote has it all!

    2. I fundamentally disagree with nick gillespie on most things, but at least he has a principled political stance. You don’t… beyond getting Republicans elected.

    3. Very likely many will consider me a seriously selfish ass for writing this, and even others will label me racist or worse. Nonetheless, I’m still more interested to learn what’s being done to protect my right to enter into another country, any country, and not find myself arrested, imprisoned, or even questioned.

      Why is this topic always 100% completely one sided?

      Every infraction, no matter how small or insignificant when involving an American citizen is recorded and easily available to practically any concerned power should any nation inquire. The USA is one of the very few countries to do that. Puts our citizens at a distinct disadvantage should they wish to emigrate elsewhere.

      Get a DUI in the USA and say hello to permanent denial of entrance into the countries of even allies like Canada. Not that Canada is a bunch of fascists, most countries have rules that if different are just as strict.

      I’m going to have to see at least some minuscule degree of effort on the part of other nations, and this one, to give me a grand chance to run from my past and/or present to a much better future before the subject of others facing difficulties coming here will be an issue worthy of attention.

  2. I’m afraid this is where major disagreement comes in. John Boehner had good reason to put off immigration cause of Obama. He basically said what good is there to pass any law if it’s not gonna be enforced? If this president delays key pieces of Obamacare for political reasons what’s not to stop him from doing the same thing on immigration? All that aside, I’m not of giving away amnesty to unlawful immigrants. No. 1 means the border won’t be secured. That needs to be done for genuine reform of immigration to get done. For as long as Obama’s in office it won’t be possible cause he and his party only want the votes of illegals so they won’t ever willingly secure the border. Eventually all this leads to the country becoming solidly blue and deep in the net of socialism making Europe look libertarian capitalist like. Another reason is that it only takes the focus off of OBAMACARE. This is the real guarantee for GOP victory this year. Immigration right now is low priority for voters right now (as low as 3 percent in polls say it’s important). As for Hispanic voters, I don’t think immigration is the make or break deal for the GOP with them. Obamacare is affecting Hispanics like nothing else. Immigration as an issue does have a place and time to be done, it’s just not now. Boehner is right here.

    1. Precisely.

      BO would be a total lame duck if it weren’t for the MSM being totally in the tank for him. They really are traitors, in a sense.

      1. Traitors to what?

        They’re all dedicated marxists ( with a few exceptions), they haven’t betrayed those ideal or Obama.

    2. What does it take for “the border to be secured”? What criteria do you use so that you can say, some day in the future, “OK, the border is secured!”?

    3. I’d buy the “it’s Obama’s fault” argument if Republicans hadn’t sabotaged George W. Bush’s attempted immigration reform, too.

      The “blame Obama” reaction seen on Reason’s comment pages for everything wrong in DC is getting annoying. The Republican Party rank-and-file simply have no interest in doing some things, one of which is immigration reform.

      1. I’ve often felt that Democrats are honestly inept at governing, and Republicans are deliberate.

      2. At the time, Reason was against GWB’s immigration reform too — for not being radical enough.

        Now he’s been rehabilitated into being a model for the Republicans to follow. At least the fucking Democrats waited 20 years to rehabilitate “Ronnie Raygun”.

    4. That needs to be done for genuine reform of immigration to get done.

      WE ALREADY SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SATISFY YOUR SECURITY FETISH

      Eventually all this leads to the country becoming solidly blue and deep in the net of socialism

      Herp Derp Muh nativist fever dreams are really prophecy!

      The only bit of sense in here is the truth that it makes no sense for the GOP to tackle immigration now as opposed to until after the elections.

      1. Given the diviciveness of the issue within the party, I can definitely understand wanting to wait until after this election. With all the problems with the ACA being laid out in front of the American people it would be a mistake to do anything but hammer this point.

    5. more water carrying, excuses made for the sake of political expediency, and racist generalizations. at least you “libertarians” are consistent even if you don’t have one iota of principle.

      1. we stand by the founding principles of this nation.

        Our immigration laws are just and fair and worked well until our government stopped enforcing them.

        Our immigration laws are some of the laxest in the world. Try sneaking into Mexico and getting free health care and see where that gets ya!

      2. fuck off trotskyite.

  3. “We’ve transformed what was before 1986 a circular flow of workers into an increasingly settled population of families. We have actually accelerated the rate of undocumented population growth in the United States and shifted it from a less costly population of male workers into a much more costly population of families.”

    And the moral hazard of the 1986 amnesty and extension of welfare benefits to illegals had nothing to do with that — it was all a result of tighter border controls. OK.

    1. extension of welfare benefits to illegals

      Citation? State-by-state correlation? Some actual data?

      And yes actually it was because of the border controls. This has been demonstrated amply at Reason.

      1. It would have been more effective if you played the skeptic in a different post from making a vague, broad, unsubstantiated claim.

        1. It’s the logical explanation offered. ‘Welfare’ has been already fisked a million times over.

  4. is Nick going to now channel his inner Shikha and, once again, convince us that borders are a pointless construct? He and others persist in fighting the battle that is settled, much like the feminists and civil rights people.

    Borders are not going anywhere and neither is national sovereignty. You can philosophically debate freedom of movement all you want, but it’s not going to cause anyone to erase national borders. And this country remains far more hospitable to newcomers than most others, including the ones to the immediate north and south.

    1. As moths to a flame they are.

      Amnesty/open borders is the last step to de facto one-party rule in this country…. and they purport not to like the party that would acheive dominance thereby.

      I almost hope they get their wish, so I could see them bitch and complain about the oppressive federal govt, after AZ, CO, VA, NC go deep blue thanks to a bumper crop of Democrat former illegals, and TX becomes a swing state.

      1. It wouldn’t be one party rule.

        The Democrats would become the right-wing party that the media called racists and we’d get a brand new Socialist party to take its place on the left.

        Surely Libertopia would then commence.

        1. Well you’re a giddy optimist aren’t you.

        2. Well, of course any current patterns (which are of course influenced by one party consistently demonizing immigrants) will last forever. It is not like a group like, say, the Irish, might come to this country tending to support Democrats and then become a significant part of the Reagan Revolution.

          1. It only took 100 years.

            There wouldn’t have been a Reagan Revolution without Republicans keeping up the good fight during the interim.

            1. “There wouldn’t have been a Reagan Revolution without Republicans”

              Many of which were of the same ethnic immigrant groups that were said to be inevitable Democrat socialists when they came to America. Reagan himself, for example.

          2. It is not like a group like, say, the Irish, might come to this country tending to support Democrats and then become a significant part of the Reagan Revolution.

            And that immigrant group gave us Wilson, FDR and other miscreants along the way.

            I’d rather not live through a similar fascist ramp up in the hopes that some center-right republican would move the dial back a couple of click 4-7 decades later.

      2. in reality, this has become an academic argument and a tiresome one at that. Borders are not going to go away, no matter how much Nick and others with they would. Not gonna happen.

        As it is, few if any countries are more hospitable to immigrants than the US. Sorry if I prefer that you bring some skills when you arrive and that you give some effort to assimilating.

        We tried amnesty once before and it worked so well that the issue has come around the bend once more. And Nick, Shikha, and some others emote on how the movie will have a different ending this time. Because something. No, it won’t.

        1. Nick and others with they would.

          You type with a lisp?

          1. only when caffeine deficient.

      3. Amnesty/open borders is the last step to de facto one-party rule in this country

        Riiiiggghhhht just like the Canadian embrace of immigration has led to one-party rule over here.

        Again, this is nativist fever-dreaming and nothing else.

        1. Cool, so we can have socialized medicine, hate speech laws, state-run media, and national gun registries too?

          1. I don’t know since those things have nothing to do with Canada’s relatively sane stance on immigration.

        2. “Canadian embrace of immigration”

          Which Canada is this? They’re more protectionist than we are.

        3. Canada embraced immigration so much that they have less than 1/10 of our population.

          What does Canada have to offer to immigrants? Half the country is frozen nothingness, non white folks don’t like hockey, and the cost of living is high compared to some other states. If you ain’t legal, then their hospitals will bill you. Socialized medicine aside, you probably get less “free stuff” there.

          As far as I can tell, Canada’s political parties are democrat lites. Their immigrants won’t support even a wannabe libertarian party.

    2. wareagle, we are also far more friendly to gun rights, but that does not mean we could not be better.

      Freedom of movement and contract, both involved in immigration, are basic, fundamental libertarian rights.

      1. gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution. The freedom of movement you seek is not, not in the way Nick would have it. One reason is that it would require the cooperation of every other place that clings to the notion of borders and sovereignty.

        This is one of those zero-sum ivory tower debates libertarians insist on fighting when there is zero chance of the outcome they want. It’s also an argument that conveniently ignores the rights of citizens, as though they would not impacted at all by an influx of however many people choose to show up.

        1. It’s also an argument that conveniently ignores the rights of citizens, as though they would not impacted at all by an influx of however many people choose to show up.

          Crossing the border does not violate anybody’s rights. This is the same construct that gun control proponents use when arguing in favor of gun control.

          1. so all those taxpayers are not infringed upon at all when people who skirt the system use its benefits. The welfare state is a draw; the only debate is to what extent, but to pretend it has nothing to do with enticing people to sneak in is still pretending.

            1. “crossing the border” != “using benefits”

              “owning a gun” != “committing murder”

              1. “crossing the border” != “using benefits”
                “owning a gun” != “committing murder”

                ah, yes; where would the debate be without disingenuous arguments like this one.

                1. Why is it disingenuous? You want to criminalize a victimless act (immigration) because of what the person might do after that act (taking welfare).

                  Gun grabbers want to criminalize a victimless act (gun ownership) because of what the person might do after that act (murder).

                2. here would the debate be without disingenuous arguments like this one.

                  Indeed, nativists like you are the first to reach for them.

              2. crossing the border = federal crime

                owning a gun = 2nd amendment right

            2. Again, this is a common argument used against libertarian’s positions on drugs. “If you legalize drugs you will have a massive public health problem and with our welfare state that will infringe on the taxpayers.”

              1. It’s also an argument in favor of things like soda bans, smoking bans, etc.

                “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…”

                1. Is there evidence that people will do drugs or drink soda because of the welfare state?

                  1. Is there evidence that people immigrate for that? I recall a Cato study that said that illegals do not use government resources more than natives and are more likely to work.

                    1. Auto manufacturers do not use government bailouts more than banks, therefore extending TARP to auto manufacturers was good policy. Right?

                    2. Er, are you against letting auto manufacturers into the country because they sometimes get bailouts?

                    3. No, I’m leading a particularly “smart in a different way” person to see the problem of moral hazard.

                    4. Why don’t you try explaining in a direct way this ‘moral hazard’ of letting people enter into this country to voluntarily contract with others?

                    5. It’s a Felony to enter this country illegally. We are a nation of laws.

                      If, you like lawless countries, then move to Somalia.

                    6. Immigrants have larger families than the native born and therefor use more government resource via public education.

                  2. Is there evidence that people will do drugs or drink soda because of the welfare state?

                    Well, this isn’t relevant to the question of whether or not immigration is immoral. However, it seems highly likely. Why would I bother cutting back on sugar or drug use when my health starts to suffer, if I know that taxpayers will always be there to pick up the tab?

                    1. I never said immigration was immoral.

                      The health care analogy is not going to work since being unhealthy, sick, and in pain is its own punishment, regardless of who’s picking up the tab.

                    2. So wait a minute, there is no moral hazard to public health measures?

                    3. It’s certainly muted compared to other examples.

                      If someone understands that smoking will cause them to need an iron lung when they’re older, it’s unlikely that the iron lung being paid for by taxpayers is going to make them discount the possibility.

                    4. Medicaid?

          2. “Crossing the border does not violate anybody’s rights. ”

            It does if they cross over someone’s private property. What then?

            1. “Crossing the border does not violate anybody’s rights.”

              And it does if they are doing it with the express intent of robbing others through the force of government.

        2. Does not everything you say apply to the libertarian position on the WOD?

          1. the WoD has come under scrutiny because the alleged benefit of it has become increasingly dubious. Not so with amnesty. It was tried in 86 and the result is where we are today.

            1. “was tried in 86 and the result is where we are today.”

              What does that mean? The ‘result’ seems to be that some of my neighbors do not have to fear the government rounding them up and making them leave.

              1. And the result of TARP and the other bailouts is that a bunch of people didn’t lose their jobs. Right?

                1. No, no, tell us, what is the ‘result’ of the 86 amnesty that is supposed to be so terrible?

              2. it means that amnesty does not work, Bo. The tradeoff was supposed to be border security which worked so well that estimates of illegals have a floor of ten million people.

                This goes directly back to something that folks here usually rail against – subsidizing actions that negatively impact on others. The only thing that guarantees is more of those actions.

                1. “The tradeoff was supposed to be border security”

                  But not for libertarians. My point is that the 86 amnesty had no consequences for libertarians that were terrible.

                  1. Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian?

                    1. Not on immigration, but again, what is the terrible result for libertarians of the 86 amnesty?

                    2. Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian?

                      Not on immigration, but again, what is the terrible result for libertarians of the 86 amnesty?

                      I guess Rothbard, Hoppe, Raico, Rockwell, John Hospers, Tom Woods, etc. are not full libertarians either.

                      Bo has been a “libertarian” himself for, what, three months time, and already seen fit to appoint himself arbiter of the term’s definition.

                  2. then it’s up to libertarians to be in a better position to influence policy. Open borders is among the weakest libertarian arguments. And the 86 amnesty had negative consequences for everyone, not the least them being the much higher costs for social services.

                    1. “And the 86 amnesty had negative consequences for everyone, not the least them being the much higher costs for social services.”

                      I think that is disputable. As I mentioned, a Cato research paper found that illegals work more and use social services no more than natives.

                    2. Link to the Cato paper?

                    3. Hahahaha, that’s why I asked for the link rather than relying on your summary.

                      1. They’re comparing low-income citizens (native AND naturalized) to low-income non-citizens.

                      2. Non-citizens here is mostly green card holders and student visa holders. I doubt illegals are filling out the census forms from which this data is drawn.

                      3. The differences are tiny, and Cato selectively decides whether to lump native and naturalized citizens together depending on whether it looks good for their agenda. Look at Figure 7 – naturalized citizens use far less cash assistance than non-citizens, so they get segregated from native citizens who use slightly more. And no duh that SSI (aka Social Security payments) are more common for citizens than non-citizens — non-citizens are rarely senior citizens.

                      A masterpiece of lies and damned lies from Cato, once again.

                    4. “The differences are tiny”

                      Does not this cut against you?

              3. The result is that we have 12 million criminals among us who do not respect the rule of law.

                Entering this country illegally is a Felony. If, you want to live in a lawless country, move to Somalia.

            2. It was tried in 86 and the result is where we are today.

              And we are at a place where we have benefited immensely from the economic consequences of amnesty. Immigration is always good.

              1. No, we have not benefited. Our states are going bankrupt due to the burden of proving free services to all the criminals who come into our country illegally. Spend some time at your local Social Services Department and watch where most of your tax dollars are going. Or, at your local hospital emergency room.

                1. Our states are going bankrupt because of fucktarded NATIVES who bleed the welfare system.

                  Of course the flip side of that is the children of immigrants born here are considered natives so they probably skew the numbers.

                  Oh and fuck off with your felony bullshit. It’s a goddamn misdemeneor.

      2. Freedom of movement and contract, both involved in immigration, are basic, fundamental libertarian rights.

        THIS^

        1. and that’s what I mean about having a pointless philosophical debate. A lot of folks here love to let the okay or good be the enemy of the perfect. Freedom comes with some responsibilities, too, among them respecting the rights of others. When your first contact with a country is disregarding its laws, what will your second or third step be?

          1. Freedom comes with some responsibilities, too, among them respecting the rights of others.

            Again, immigration violates nobody’s rights.

            When your first contact with a country is disregarding its laws, what will your second or third step be?

            I don’t care how many immoral laws people disregard. In fact, I applaud it.

            1. And who is the judge of whether a law is immoral?

              The Bush administration thought FISA’s wiretap restrictions were immoral. Do they get any applause?

              1. And who is the judge of whether a law is immoral?

                Everyone.

                The Bush administration thought FISA’s wiretap restrictions were immoral. Do they get any applause?

                Not from libertarians.

            2. sorry but when people’s law breaking costs me money, it’s a problem. We’re not going to have open borders, no matter how much Nick and others plead for it. Of course, illegal immigration violates my rights and those of others, if for no other reason that the public services that are invariably called into play.

              1. Of course, illegal immigration violates my rights and those of others, if for no other reason that the public services that are invariably called into play.

                Then it’s the provision of public services that violates your rights, not the act of immigration. Otherwise, a poor person giving birth to a child is also a violation of your rights.

                1. public services are part of my cost of admission into society. I may not like the extent of those services, how they are rendered, or their cost, but they exist.

                  With a poor person, I have at least a marginal expectation that the person or the child will access what is available and become a productive citizen. With the illegal, I don’t even have the expectation of that person assimilating into society. So along with liberals telling me how that’s nativist or some other -ist, it appears I know have libertarians joining that choir.

                  1. With a poor person, I have at least a marginal expectation that the person or the child will access what is available and become a productive citizen.

                    What if the child is mentally retarded?

                    1. the exception proves the rule fallacy.

                    2. Um, that does not apply here. There are certain people who are born in this country who we know almost certainly will be net consumers of tax dollars. So, according to your own logic, allowing them to be born is a violation of your rights. While a law that requires abortions for poor people might not cut it, a law that requires abortions in the case of certain deficiencies detected in the womb would.

                  2. “With a poor person, I have at least a marginal expectation that the person or the child will access what is available and become a productive citizen.”

                    And this is not true of immigrants?

              2. “sorry but when people’s law breaking costs me money”

                Again, this goes for the WOD. Lots of people who do drugs end up in emergency rooms, psych wards, getting government paid for rehab…

                1. sorry but when people’s law breaking costs me money, it’s a problem.

                  So don’t make it breaking the law any more. Will that satisfy you? 😛

                  As Bo says, you’re not breaking out of the WOD analogy. Drug dealers’ and users’ law breaking costs you money (including enforcement of the law they are breaking), so that must be a problem too. And… what, that problem means the law they are breaking must be upheld? This is pretty circular.

                2. and lots of those people, Bo, have paid taxes meaning they have at least partially contributed to what they are using. And this isn’t the same as the WoD.

                  1. And lots of illegals pay taxes too.

                    1. No, they use a stolen SSN and claim 7 exemptions on the (falsified) W-4, so that nothing’s withheld. Then a US citizen in Oregon gets a love letter from the IRS accusing them of tax evasion because they didn’t include income from their job picking fruit in Alabama.

                    2. Yep, this totally happens with every person that comes over here.

            3. Since you prefer living in a lawless society, please move to Somalia. You will be much happier there.

          2. When your first contact with a country is disregarding its laws, what will your second or third step be?

            Given that you probably don’t make it 24 hours without violating some law or other, hows does this reflect on your citizenship?

          3. Maybe we shouldn’t make it so hard for people to get into the country the right way.

            Just a thought.

          4. Also, 3 motherfucking felonies a day.

      3. I dispensed with the freedom of contract argument last night. In case you forgot, freedom of contract does not imply that third parties have to assist with the fulfillment of that contract.

        If I contract with Domino’s Pizza 10 miles away to deliver pizzas within 10 minutes of my call, that does not suddenly render a 35mph speed limit on the road between us a violation of freedom of contract.

        Freedom of movement is subject to reasonable restrictions too. For example you can’t cut across someone’s property without their permission and claim freedom of movement. I doubt you believe in unrestricted freedom of movement either: would you allow international terrorists or foreigners with extensive records of violent crime to cross into our country?

        1. “I dispensed with the freedom of contract argument last night.”

          No you did not, you equated not stopping someone with helping, which is ridiculous.

          “Freedom of movement is subject to reasonable restrictions too. ”

          OK, and using force to stop people who want to voluntarily enter and travel public roads to enter into voluntary contracts with others is not one of them.

        2. freedom of contract does not imply that third parties have to assist with the fulfillment of that contract.

          Irrelevant to immigration.

          For example you can’t cut across someone’s property without their permission and claim freedom of movement.

          Retarded nativist red herring.

          would you allow international terrorists or foreigners with extensive records of violent crime to cross into our country?

          Strawman.

        3. would you allow international terrorists or foreigners with extensive records of violent crime to cross into our country?

          I would start by at least asking myself, ‘why are they here and not Brazil?’

          If the answer is something the Federal government did, realize the problem isn’t open borders but an overly expansive foreign policy. If it is not, some terrorist are just assholes who would not be deterred by non aggression, ie. socialist factions in the 70s all over Europe, eco-terrorist — though mostly a domestic disease, also some factions within Islamist movements who would not be appeased by our apathy, then yeah, theoretically, restricting their movement might have a useful function. However, it is also not likely to be an effective policy with the costs overwhelming the benefits as we have now with the national security state.

          Alternatives? Bounties, perhaps? What is the effectiveness of this as opposed to a full blown national security state? After all, Salman Rushdie still lives. No easy answer, but the cost/benefit line would certainly be in a healthier state. Effectiveness? Still, from 1975 to 2001, end of the Vietnam War to when the buildings fell, spending on national defense was 20 trillion plus. Hard to argue the national security state was not the biggest farce in human history.

          As for criminals in general, that will always be best kept in check with a well armed citizenry than one that passively relies on a knighted bureaucrat.

          1. Hard to argue the national security state was not the biggest farce in human history.

            Still currently ‘is’. I was thinking in terms of how it is going to be regarded in post federalized America.

          2. Still, from 1975 to 2001, end of the Vietnam War to when the buildings fell, spending on national defense was 20 trillion plus.

            Did anything else happen during that time period that may have been a benefit of defense spending?

            I absolutely agree with needing to end the interventionist foreign policy, but as you note in passing, there are people who want to blow us up for reasons unrelated to that. You don’t seem to have an answer.

            1. Did anything else happen during that time period that may have been a benefit of defense spending?

              There was an empire on the other side of the planet imploding from its excessive territorial ambitions and hyper Keynesian economy. As I recall, her neighbors were so unconcerned their defense budgets consisted of us.

              You don’t seem to have an answer.

              You don’t understand. The entire apparatus was built supposedly to prevent 9-11 from occurring. When that day came the rate of failure was 100 percent for the entire national security state. Instead of offering their entrails after an honorable suicide, they asked for more money, as if the problem was they were underfunded. What is that saying about the definition of insanity? You keep doing the same thing, you positively will fail.

              1. There was an empire on the other side of the planet imploding from its excessive territorial ambitions and hyper Keynesian economy.

                LOL. Look at what experts at the time thought. Nobody was claiming that the USSR was on its last legs, rather they were terrified that “Ronnie Raygun” was going to provoke the Soviet juggernaut into a shooting war. Peaceful coexistence and detente with the Soviets was the philosophy that held sway in 1980.

                As I recall, her neighbors were so unconcerned their defense budgets consisted of us.

                Her neighbors in Europe, along with many of her own citizens, were living under Soviet-controlled governments so defense budgets weren’t an issue. And they were damn glad we spent all that money to bankrupt that empire when it was over.

                If you’re talking about W.Europe, the countries with bases (UK and FRG) paid us for them. The free riders in France were able to freeride because they knew we weren’t leaving. They certainly weren’t unconcerned about the Soviet threat.

              2. You don’t understand. The entire apparatus was built supposedly to prevent 9-11 from occurring.

                ?????????

                You were born yesterday, it seems?

                All those ICBMs and spy sattelites and nuclear subs and fleets of fighters and bombers were to prevent a 9/11 type attack. Huh, seems to have been maladept to that task. Perhaps they were trying to defend against something else?

                When that day came the rate of failure was 100 percent for the entire national security state.

                Bullshit. 9/11 was a mosquito bite compared to what the USSR was capable of dishing out.

                1. You were born yesterday, it seems?

                  Look at Tulpa getting pissed someone brings up facts he can’t wish away.

                  It seems you have completely forgotten the context of history here. The end of the Vietnam War and Detente created a shift in the rationale for defense expenditure. That’s why I placed it in the context of 1975 to 2001 when other rationales besides the Cold War like terrorism were starting to be put forward. The Soviets funding of terrorist and how our ground war and and atomic war tactics could not counter this was a huge issue for several years before the Afghanistan invasion.

                  Ronald Reagan, for one, didn’t believe the Soviet Union was healthy, and he said long before the collapse they were on their last legs. It was a common theme of his speeches. Murray Rothbard was another to have advanced the point.

                  1. How much of that $20T was spent on antiterrorism stuff? Not much.

                    And 9/11 would have been a bump in the road were it not for the ridiculous overreaction. More people get killed in auto accidents every year.

                    1. What is the rationale that is given for the national security state by those that operate it?

                      To keep American safe from foreign elements who wish to do us harm.

                      That is why what occurred on 9-11 was a total failure of that national security state from maintaining its objectives.

                      I commend you on getting me sidetracked though.

                      And as you admit, they freely spend trillions on matters of little consequence and no returns, which is my point.

                    2. to keep American safe from foreign elements who wish to do us harm.

                      I don’t know why they spend trillion defending that guy, he seems like a complete douche from his posts on this board.

                    3. So let me get this straight — any American getting killed, injured, kidnapped, whatever means that the entire national defense spending is a failure. Even if much greater threats were prevented.

                    4. If not for Reagan scoffing at Carter’s plans for the MX missile deployment system and calling it a ‘Rube Goldberg scheme’ we would not be under Soviet occupation now. That hundred billion not spent seems like a pittance in retrospect.

        4. I dispensed with the freedom of contract argument last night.

          Hahaha.

          If I live on a ranch in West Texas and personally fly my helicopter to get someone to work as my head wrangler, how is that any of your damn business?

  5. OT: Salon discovers Rand Paul’s nefarious anti-freedom agenda.

    My favorite is their attack on Charles C.W. Cooke in this article. Here’s what Cooke said:

    Work is a virtue that should be reflexively encouraged. It is the means by which standards of living are grown, human potential is reached, individual lives are focused, positive and negative instincts are channeled, resources are utilized most efficiently, and, above all, by which dignity remains intact. It is the best antidote to personal and national ossification and sclerosis, and the primary means by which our present material comfort was achieved. It is the driving force behind improvement, both real and imagined, in the nation’s mainstream culture.

    Salon’s response:

    As Cooke shows, the orthodox libertarian worldview assumes real freedom only exists for the powerful, and that any effort to liberate middle class or poor people from the burdens of spiritually, emotionally or even economically unrewarding labor is not only unjust but, because of the taxes it requires others to pay, a transgression against liberty itself. It’s a curiously limited, exclusive understanding of what it is to be free. It’s also proof that, in politics, those on the right and the left can understand the same word to have radically different meanings.

    Okay then.

    1. I’ll repeat my prediction. They’ll roll out The New Freedom agenda for the upcoming election cycle just like the Republicans did with Contract With America. What else do they have to work with?

      1. They really think that welfare is great and more people should be on the dole.

        I don’t think that’s going to be a winning argument in 2014.

    2. I wanted to reply to the Salon piece, but I’m unwilling to sign up with them. Here was my reply:

      ” This is probably the most dishonest piece I’ve ever read. Your ability to take what someone said and insist that it mean something completely different than the plain meaning of their words is truly impressive. I thought bible-thumping social conservatives were the masters at distorting other people’s views, but they have nothing on Salon (in general) and this piece in particular. The inane comments follow like dog drool after Pavlov’s bell ringing.

      You’ve done reasonable people a service. There are only so many hours in a day. Who to engage with on the topics of the day? How to weed out the irrational? Now we have an indicator: if they mention Salon, walk away like they are quoting from the Old Testament during a debate on Capital Punishment. Not worth a rational person’s time. Thanks.”

  6. And if the GOP is actually interested in wooing Hispanic voters and moderate independents, it would do well to emulate the attitudes and policies toward immigrants of Texas pols such as former President George W. Bush and Gov. Rick Perry, who managed to pull 40 percent or more of Latino voters in state and national elections.

    Might have something to do with Bush being a welfare state-social conservatism fusionist?

    I love how whenever the immigration debate comes up, Dubya gets held up as a model for what the GOP should be. It’s like 2004-08 never happened.

    1. Or it might have something to do with him not suggesting asinine things like rounding up 12M people to deport them. 😀

  7. E-Verify is not only yet another state database (they love ’em!) but also drafts employers into service for ICE. You have a someone who needs workers and you have workers who need employment, now all you need is government permission. Fuck that shit.

    1. Do not laws requiring ID checks for alcohol, tobacco, and lottery purchases (and presumably MJ purchases in WA and CO) also “draft employers into service for” the state?

      1. I should say “draft store clerks into service”…

      2. “The state is already punching you in the face so why complain about them punching you in gut?”

      3. We are not big fans of those measures either, are we?

        1. Tulpa undoubtedly is.

        2. While I think the age limit for alcohol is too high, and there should be exceptions for use of these items with parental permission, it’s sensible to have some age limit. And for that you have to have an enforcement mechanism.

          Please tell me you don’t think a 5 year old should be allowed to go to the corner store and buy a pack of cigarettes.

          Then again, there are some goofballs here who think drunk driving is a natural right, so hope dwindles.

          1. So since we have government commandeering in that area we should have it in another. Good argument?

            1. “Arff arff arff throw the stick!”

              – Bo

              1. Your basic argument here has been ‘hey, this is no worse than any other government function, so what is the problem with it?’ And you expect this to fly on a libertarian website?

                1. Tulpatard doesn’t ‘expect’ anything he just…does. He’ll throw whatever false equivalence shit he can. He’s the real Red Tony.

                2. Bo: That’s not my argument at all. look at the comment I was initially responding to.

      4. Yes, and the sting operations the government runs are morally wicked.

      5. Yes they do. And those laws are immoral too.

      6. Do not laws requiring ID checks for alcohol, tobacco, and lottery purchases (and presumably MJ purchases in WA and CO) also “draft employers into service for” the state?

        To some extent, yes they do.

        However, what the don’t do is created a national or state database on who is eligible to purchase those products and then require verfication from that database for every purchase.

        The id required for alcohol and cigarettes is actually less onerous than the current employment eligibility verification process.

        Let alone this e-verify monstrosity.

  8. I think a “grand compromise” is barreling toward us. This compromise will involve the worst ideas of all sides – disguised amnesty, balanced out by an E-Verify program. Then strict enforcement of E-Verify will be demanded as Proof of Our Seriousness about Enforcing the Immigration Laws.

    Go ahead and prove me wrong, I would be eternally grateful.

    1. And I would bet that E-Verify will be sold as a “voluntary” program – an extra precaution that employers could take if they want to in order to verify an applicant’s immigration status.

      In reality, of course, there will be severe penalties for those employers who don’t use E-Verify. If they inadvertently hire an illegal, then they’ll be prosecuted because they could have easily confirmed the person’s illegality by checking the E-Verify database. If they turn down applicants they *think* are illegal, without consulting the database, then they’ll be sued for dicrimination against Latin people, or whoever they guess wrongly is illegal.

      So the bottom line will be that any employer who knows what’s good for him will use the “voluntary” database. In fact, their liability insurance carrier will insist on it.

      Then when Mr. Tuttle complains that nobody will hire him because he’s in the database under Buttle, then the progressives will say this is the employer’s fault, and that it’s a Koch-funded lie to blame the government.

    2. While I agree E-Verify is one of the worst things the GOP is bringing to the table, I do not see why I as a libertarian, as opposed to say a Republican, should find ‘disguised amnesty’ to be one.

      1. Oh, and amnesty will probably be combined with federal aid.

          1. !

                1. :)-

                  1. What’s Alissi’s email address again?

  9. God, these articles bring out some major derp from both sides. I’m glad Boehner seems to have put this issue off for the year, because I couldn’t take seeing 2-3 immigration articles every day for the next six months.

  10. It’s a curiously limited, exclusive understanding of what it is to be free.

    Somebody has an, err, idiosyncratic understanding of liberty, that much is certain.

  11. Stop, elaborate and listen
    ICE is back with a brand new invention
    Statists grabbing hold of me tightly
    Checking my papers daily and nighly

    Will it ever stop? Oh, hell no
    The government is only gonna grow.

  12. Where does these “open border” and “zero sovereignty” utopian ideas spring from? It seems at times Libertarianism is where the liberal side of Blue Dog Democrats go to retire.

    1. To answer your question, just as a helpful tip, when you find yourself wondering why a libertarian believes a certain idea to be true ask yourself how their idea can be justified as an extension of the Non Aggression Principle and you will find your answer.

      1. To make NAP anything approaching practical, you need an overarching authority with a monopoly on the initiation of force. That doesn’t exist in our world across national borders.

      2. You may have a weak point if every other country accepted anywhere near the number of immigrants the US does. Care to make your argument regarding more Muslim immigration in, say, France, Briton, Germany, Denmark, Finland, E. Dearborn?

  13. HATE

    HATE

    HATE

    1. JEORBS!!!11

    2. Oh come on, how are we supposed to know what this is responding to?

      1. racecardracecardracecard

    3. They don’t call you the Axis of Glib because you present such cogent arguments.

  14. All those people on the right who insist that this is “a Christian nation” need to explain why they fear incoming hordes of Catholics.

    1. Any number of Somali Christians too. This open border shit could work.

      1. And my own pet cause of the immigration issue, the completely arbitrary barriers to entry for eastern Europeans, particularly unmarried women. I’ll admit that I’m not motivated to advocate for them because they’re mostly Orthodox, but this is a helpful fact.

    2. “Fire all red herrings, Mr. Worf!”

    3. The people who refer to “a Christian nation” probably don’t think of Catholics as Christian.

      Seriously, try going into a “Chrstian” book store and ask where they display their rosaries for sale.

    4. You can be “Christian” and statist at the same time.

      I don’t think Hitler and the Nazi were atheists.

      1. No they were neo-pagans.

  15. I still wonder why the whoopers for unlimited immigration don’t argue as strenuously against immigration controls at airports as they argue against controlling the Mexican border.

    Why is this? I don’t see anyone noticing that millions of people from everywhere would be happy to move here but we are very effective at stopping them at airports.

    Arrive on an airplane and we screen you out, cross the Rio Grande and libertarians, Democrats, and the bigwig faction of the Republicans welcome you with open arms and a welfare state.

    1. “I still wonder why the whoopers for unlimited immigration don’t argue as strenuously against immigration controls at airports as they argue against controlling the Mexican border.”

      Are we know seeing ‘libertarians’ here defending TSA?

      Wow.

      1. He’s clearly talking about customs, you emptyheaded troll.

        1. Clearly? TSA plays no immigration control role at airports? And you do know customs and TSA are interrelated, right?

          1. TSA plays no immigration control role at airports?

            No, they don’t. Having fun throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks?

            And you do know customs and TSA are interrelated, right?

            Mmm, red herring on a Saturday evening is so yummy.

      2. I don’t know anyone here defending the TSA, certainly not me. I’m wondering why libertarians don’t make a great fuss about the right to free movement for people entering the country from anywhere but the Mexican border.

        1. …we are all for that, too. It’s just that the massive demand for immigration is along the southern border not at our airports. The articles are addressing the most pressing issue.

          1. More like the easiest way to sneak in is along our southern border.

            You’re not sneaking in aboard a plane.

            1. Yeah no one who flies here ever overstays their VISA.

              1. A person who overstays their visa didn’t sneak in.

                And they’re much less numerous and much easier to track down than illegal border crossers.

    2. What is there to discuss? If the government is stopping waves of immigrants at airports, that should be eased up as well. I honestly don’t know how that side works; can those kind of “illegals” get on a flight to the US in the first place? Presumably many do not because they know it’s a long shot to get in.

      People focus on the Mexican border because it’s the big, controversial side of this political debate. Duh.

      1. But what about that “Inherent Right To Freedom Of Movement That Follows From The Principle That I Own Myself” that gets tossed around here now and then?

        I thought that libertarians were all about general principles and stuff.

        1. Yes. Immigrants coming via plane should be able to just as easily enter as immigrants coming over the Canadian or Mexican borders.

          I don’t get the point.

          1. No customs, no health quarantine, no invasive species check, no background check… yeah that will work out great.

            1. no health quarantine, no invasive species check, no background check,

              These things would be impossible to implement except maybe the background check. Health quarantine? Do you want to get every tourist coming over in a sealed room for a week?

              1. If they’re coughing up blood, you bet.

                I don’t see an exception for sick people in your vaunted freedom of movement.

                1. We have excellent tests for TB now that literally require one to cough into an extractor and qPCR takes it from there. We’ve got this covered.

                  1. And what happens if the test comes back positive?

                    1. I have absolutely no problem allowing someone with Tb to enter the country, in the end it is up to the airline as to whether or not they are allowed on the flight. Would you require that everyone with Tb be kept in a hospital at gun point?

                    2. Of course, it’s Tulpa you’re talking to.

      2. I honestly don’t know how that side works; can those kind of “illegals” get on a flight to the US in the first place?

        You don’t have to produce visas, etc until you arrive in your destination country. The only ID you need to board is a passport.

        1. Not necessarily so. Before you get on a US bound flight (at least in Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen and probably other places) you are screened by a representative of US immigration. A non US citizen may have to produce a visa at that time, I don’t know. For a US citizen a passport and a colonoscopy are enough.

          1. I don’t remember that on any of my intl flights, but those were mostly before 9/11 and all before the Underwear Bomber fiasco.

            1. My flights have been 1994 to the present. The real crap started post9/11.

        2. Every airline checks valid visas and/or passports of every passenger before he/she boards the first plane (the first segment may even be domestic) on an international trip. It’s practically impossible to fly to a foreign country without a proper visa and/or passport. Airlines are fined if they transport passengers without proper visas and then they pay for a return trip (deportation) of those passengers. They have strong incentives not to let board anybody without a visa.

          1. But it’s not the government doing it directly, so it doesn’t count. /derp.

    3. If immigrants want to fly here, I’m all for it. Happy?

      1. If you make as much noise about as you do about the Mexican border I’ll be happier. But I’m betting that you, and most certainly Gillespie, won’t.

        1. it’s because it is easier to make a class and color argument when you can pretend you’re standing up the little guy: not very educated, low-skilled brown person from south of the border vs. more educated, enough to means to buy an airline ticket brown person from the middle east or yellow person from Asia or even black person from Africa.

          Somehow, coming in the back door is perceived as more noble than knocking at the front.

          1. The point is to make it so that people coming from the southern border have reason to (safely) go through “the front door” rather than (dangerously) try to get through “the back door.”

            1. That is a valid point and why I favor expanding legal immigration (with stipulations that I’m sure dogmatic libertarians won’t like). But that ain’t enough for dogmatic libertarians, they want open borders, which is an entirely different animal. Cross whenever wherever you want subject to no inspections.

              1. But that ain’t enough for dogmatic libertarians, they want legalization of all drugs, which is an entirely different animal. Take whatever wherever you want subject to no restrictions.

              2. Citation? The few times I see people discuss specifics in these threads, they talk about simplifying the process and uncapping/vastly expanding worker visas and such. They say that criminals and highly contagious immigrants should still be barred.

                Of course, many of us probably do dislike your stipulations, given the stipulations you propose for personal gun ownership.

                1. Put another way, while I see people applauding the open immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, I don’t recall seeing anyone here complain about Ellis Island.

                  1. Ellis Island enforced immigration laws, that’s why I don’t squawk.

                2. They say that criminals and highly contagious immigrants should still be barred.

                  When you push them they sometimes do, but reality is that’s in conflict with supposed freedom of movement and freedom of contract principles. Arguing with many of the people on here is like nailing jello to a wall.

                  The only stipulations I propose for gun ownership are that you not pose a specific and unusual danger to public safety (due to being a violent felon, mentally ill, etc).

                  If you’re talking about the safe storage act I proposed, that only applied to weapons which are unusually conducive to mass shootings, and went no further than requiring owners of such weapons doing what responsible gun owners already do — keep their weapons under lock and key.

                  I’ll toss the grenade right back at you and wonder aloud why libertarians who take as an article of faith that criminals will have guns as long as guns are available on the black market, so adamantly oppose measures which would allow fewer guns to be stolen and put on the black market.

                  1. but reality is that’s in conflict with supposed freedom of movement and freedom of contract principles

                    Tulpa talks of that he doesn’t understand. Sun rises in East.

                  2. Because it’s none of your fucking business how I store MY guns in MY house?

                    Really Tulpa, how hard is that to understand.

                    (Oh, and do you have any numbers to back up your implied assertion that most guns being used by criminals were stolen?)

          2. Who’s the one making an argument based on race here? And speaking as someone who knows a lot of Chinese people who had or have to go through immigration hell to get here, fuck off.

            1. fuck off yourself. A LOT of arguments on this come down to the brownz, as though anyone who thinks open borders is not a great idea hates any non-WASP.

        2. And how do you know how much noise I make about the Mexican border? Every argument I’ve made in this thread has been about immigration, not Mexican immigration.

          1. When I see the rest of the world mentioned as often as Mexico, I’ll believe that people are arguing a general principle. But I haven’t seen it here or anywhere else in the debate for that matter.

            1. “When I see the rest of the world mentioned as often as Mexico”

              Of course it is not mentioned as much given most of our current immigration restrictions are focused there.

              It is as if you are saying ‘these libertarians talk a lot about marijuana legalization, but do you ever hear them talk about legalizing peyote?’

              1. Bo, if you think that our immigration restrictions are focused on Mexico, you’ve never passed through the international arrival area of a US airport, brought in groups of European engineers for in-plant training, or talked with a Czech about getting a green card.

                Where DID you get this idea?

            2. See Bryan Caplan. See openborders.info. See any libertarian talking about open borders outside of an article on a contemporary political issue.

              This is not difficult, assuming you care enough to understand. People talk most about the Mexican border. The Mexican border is a huge controversial issue at this particular time. So people like Nick – who get paid to write about contemporary issues – focus in particular on the Mexican border.

              This is like people grouching that Rand Paul gets more attention here than more ‘pure’ libertarian politicians. It’s because Paul gets more attention in “mainstream” discussion. It doesn’t make Paul a ‘better’ libertarian than, say, Justin Amash.

              1. From what I can tell, much of the attention Rand Paul gets is negative (the monthly “Rand Paul is not a libertarian on X” articles, for example).

                Whereas we get chided by the Jacket for not considering Bill Maher libertarian timber.

                1. That’s such a load of crap. The Paul articles are at least split 50/50 (more like 70good/30bad).

              2. People certainly do talk more about the Mexican border than anywhere else; that’s my point. I wonder why people from the rest of the world get negligible consideration.

                Yes, there is theoretical chatter about other places but nothing concrete or practical is done or even said about it.

                1. Because people from the rest of the world get less consideration from the stop illegal immigration crowd.

                  Also because the rest of the world’s immigrants don’t represent a “huge voting block” that both parties try to court.

  16. What is Rand Paul’s position regarding more government spending on border security? Gee, I wonder.

    1. If he gets everything he claims to want, it wouldn’t necessarily be a net increase.

  17. I’m wondering why libertarians don’t make a great fuss about the right to free movement for people entering the country from anywhere but the Mexican border.

    DERP

    DERP

    DERP

    1. I’m not convinced that quite answers my question. But thank you for providing an answer within your intellectual limits.

      1. That’s all the intellectual rigor your retarded question deserved.

  18. SUMMARY OF THE “LIBERTARIAN” ARGUMENT ON IMMIGRATION THUS FAR:

    We don’t like databases of citizens because they’re creepy.
    We don’t like national ID cards because movie Soviets always say “papers please”.
    We don’t like observation drones because their weaponized cousins are sometimes misused.
    We don’t like Minutemen because they’re weird conservatives.
    We don’t like state enforcement of immigration laws because of Sheriff Joe.
    We don’t like border patrol agents defending themselves because of that poor widdle rock-throwing kid.
    We don’t like border fences because of the Berlin Wall.
    We don’t like eVerify because it “drafts employers into the service of ICE”.
    We don’t like moats because of Herman Cain.
    We don’t like relying on anonymous tips because of 1984.

    Without any of these things, it’s impossible to control immigration. Therefore you must agree to open borders. QED.

    1. Not a bad summary of the rhetoric. But you forgot to mention The Fundamental Human Right To Move Wherever You Want. I think that is the governing idea and there is something in it. My question is, why do only those who cross the Mexican border get to exercise this right?

      1. “My question is, why do only those who cross the Mexican border get to exercise this right?”

        Several people have already answered this for you.

        1. I see no answer to why people from other countries don’t deserve the same consideration given to Mexican border crossers.

          1. Several people have already said they do.

            1. So what if “several people say they do”? It’s sunk Titanic-deep in the Mexican border discussions.

    2. Government databases are highly corruptible and easily used for very horrible ends.
      National ID cards are unnecessary. Also see above.
      The border is not a fucking war zone.
      No opinion on Minutemen except they can be a little overzealous and xenophobic (but so can everyone else).
      Sheriff Joe is a worldclass shitbag and horrible human being.
      A kid throwing a rock (could possibly depend on the size of the rock) doesn’t deserve to be shot to death.
      Good luck maintaining a border fence, it worked so well for the Romans and the Chinese every time they tried it.
      eVerify is another Big Government program and does in essence draft employers into doing ICE’s job for them. (Having other companies doing similar things like checking ID for cigarettes and alcohol is stupid too.)
      Haven’t heard the moat idea. Makes about as much sense as a fence or a wall (none at all).
      Anonymous tips couldn’t possibly be abused by pissed off neighbors or your competitors.

      Really Tulpa, I know you’re a law and order type but supporting any of these measures shows just how much of a Security State buttmunch you can be.

  19. If I thought Repubs were really dedicated to small government I’d be in favor of immigration reform. The Repubs aren’t capable of articulating a moral, principled argument for limited government. They make some mock gestures toward it but never really follow through (see the elimination of most of the sequester cuts).

    Immigrants coming here aren’t familiar with libertarian arguments. A strong outreach from an established party could persuade, but that isn’t happening.

    And, here’s Milton Friedman on immigration within a welfare state:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

  20. But thank you for providing an answer within your intellectual limits.

    Your preposterous and fantastically imbecilic assertion has laid bare the depth and breadth of your understanding of the issue. It’s as much as you deserve.

    1. As opposed to your own HATE HATE HATE post?

    2. Fancy talk, but argumentum ad absurdum presented in biggish words still doesn’t address the issue.

      Saying “you’re a stoopy head” in polysyllables is no real response

  21. Nothing demonstrates my recently made point about how many conservatives and Republicans lurk on this site than an immigration thread. As many people on this thread oppose something that was one of the original libertarian positions on the Nolan chart as are for it!

    1. You really think Nolan invented libertarianism, don’t you.

      1. I do not confuse invented with fundamentally captured, no.

        1. LOL. A ten question push poll, on which shrike does better than Ron Paul, captured libertarianism.

    2. Those disagreeing with certain ideas are lurkers, conservatives, and Republicans, eh? Perhaps they really are kulaks, hoarders, saboteurs, spies or elements of the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie.

      You can’t be too careful these days.

    3. So it’s OK if I call you a leftist Democrat, Bo?

    4. Nothing demonstrates my recently made point about how many conservatives and Republicans lurk on this site than an immigration thread.

      Conveniently, every topic where anybody disagrees with you demonstrates in your mind that the site is filled with GOP shills. The only person more obsessed with Republicans on this site than you is, maybe, shreeeek. Epi and Sevo are gonna be Bush-loving SOCONZ!!!!(!!!!!)!!!! by the time you’re done putting them through the House Un-Libertarian Activities committee.

      1. Shreek worships oversimplified libertarian purity tests too. Could Bo be shreek when he’s on his meds?

  22. Reason keeping fresh:

    https://reason.com/blog/2014/02…..mmigration

  23. This article seems familiar. Three important points bear repeating or making anew:

    1) Tulpa is an imbecile.

    2) Immigration is an absolute right. The only restrictions a government may place are to prevent terrorists, criminals, the dangerously contagious, or foreign agents of enemy governments (spies) from coming in. That is all.

    3) Boehner is absolutely right to put this off until after the midterms. Doing so gives the ‘Blood and Soil’ types the illusion of some kind of victory and keeps them somewhat mollified. Getting into immigration now not only puts splits into the GOP/Conservatives, it gives the Dems and their media allies something to distract Americans from the issues that are killing them ie Ocare and the economy. Sorry Nick, but you’re being blind to the short-term politics. This is an instance where the stupid party isn’t being stupid.

    1. Immigration is an absolute right. The only restrictions a government may place are to prevent terrorists, criminals, the dangerously contagious, or foreign agents of enemy governments (spies) from coming in.

      You’re big on self contradiction today.

      1. We can just make a law and says that if those folks enter the country they have to report their arrival to the local authorities. Problem solved.

        1. And what happens if the local authorities consider them terrorists, criminals, dangerously contagious, foreign agents, etc?

          1. Well those would be the only people who would be required to report so they should consider them that. Since local authorities are not allowed to enforce immigration law or even notify ICE about illegal immigration they can simply thank them for their cooperation and send them on their way.

            1. So you’re not solving the problem at all, just paying some lip service.

              1. There is no ‘problem’ aside from asinine local authorities like in Maricopa county.

      2. You’re big on being a big fucking moron today, just like everyday.

    2. I like point number 2. I’ll whoop for open borders when the EU opens its borders so I can emigrate to Vienna, the USA stops double taxing foreign-earned income, and the government can’t confiscate a significant chunk of my assets if I revoke my citizenship.

    3. On #3, I’m not sure this is going to work from the establishment GOP POV (which is Boehner’s, of course). The Tea Party is coming hard after RINOs this primary season and the US Chamber of Crony Capitalism and the Bush-Rove dead-enders are answering the bell. They’re not going to be able to keep this issue under wraps and wait to betray us after the election.

    4. Boehner is absolutely right to put this off until after the midterms

      Politically, it is a smart move. It is an issue that doesn’t cause much friction inside the DNC coalition but it divides the opposition. Perfect issue to trot out in those years ending in even numbers.

      1. Once the GOP gives a thumping to the Dems, they can lay down some pain. Ideally, overturn Ocare but that’s unlikely. Getting actual spending cuts? Something anything. The point being, the more pain they inflict the more breathing room they have to implement a sane approach to immigration. The more the other TP factions are happy, the more isolated the Blood ‘n Soil dead-enders are. They aren’t nearly as powerful as their volume would let on. A political paper tiger than can only cause problems before these midterms.

        1. That strategy works great in the Senate. But the Senate isn’t your problem — there are enough crony capitalist quisling RINOs there for your side to prevail.

          Your problem is the chamber that has the next election season begin pretty much as soon as this one ends. It is cute to see libertarians talking about far more numerous and electorally active groups as “paper tigers” though.

          1. crony capitalist

            Has nothing to do with free immigration.

            The House? Meh, we’ll see. I think that would be even easier than the Senate. I think enough of the TP-affiliated folks in the House will be sane on immigration to get something decent through.

            It is cute to see libertarians talking about far more numerous and electorally active groups as “paper tigers” though.

            You’d like to believe that the nativists are more numerous, but the polls say otherwise.

            1. When you add the open borders libertarians to the crony capitalists and the socialists, it is indeed a formidable number. Congratulations.

              I’m curious, what do you think they’re going to do with you guys once you’ve helped them bring their cheap labor and loyal voting bloc in? Don’t expect us to help. You’ll be learning the same lesson Chris Christie is learning now.

              1. Oh noes, cheap labor! The last thing we want is that.

                Looking forward to you cheering minimum wage increases.

    5. 2) Immigration is an absolute right. The only restrictions a government may place are to prevent terrorists, criminals, the dangerously contagious, or foreign agents of enemy governments (spies) from coming in. That is all.

      I realize you are being facetious, but just to be clear, because many libertarians seem not to understand this when they should know better: Immigration is not a right. Nothing is a right that conflicts with another right, or that is required to be provided by another. Free immigration conflicts with property rights, from which all other rights derive.

      1. How is someone coming here a violation of your property rights? I’m genuinely curious of your reasoning.

        1. It is not that migration necessarily violates property rights?but that it can, and therefore it cannot be a right. Free immigration into a country that is the property of a sovereign (to give a real world example, Monaco is still virtually an absolute monarchy) would violate the property rights of the land owners.

          Rothbard states in Ethics of Liberty:

          [T]he private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the “human right” to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact that current immigration barriers restrict not so much a “human right” to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if “Primus” wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don’t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.

          1. Thanks, I’ll check out the link when I get a little bit more time.

          2. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample?

            While there may not be a right to immigrate, because that necessarily puts a claim on the property the im- refers to, there is most certainly a human right to migrate. Just as there is not a right to health care, but there is certainly a right not to be prohibited from obtaining health care.

            However, the comedy of presuming that the property rights of millions of landowners will somehow yield a nation where no one will take payment to let someone pass on his rights of way is beyond ridicule. Open immigration in an anarchy is a fait accompli. And the argument, a la Hoppe, that the government’s maintaining all the roads makes it a sole property owner that can therefore legitimately restrict immigration is truly absurd.

    6. “Immigration is an absolute right.”

      What part of the constitution grants non Americans an absolute right to cross our borders without going through INS? And how would you know a prospective immigrant doesn’t have ties to terrorist organizations if he can just sneak in?

      Let’s say you resent the government taking your money to pay for my healthcare. “Robbing paul to pay Peter”, you might say. Then why support amnesty? You’re spending other people’s money (one way or another) to legalize individuals who broke immigration laws and provide financial assistance.

      But immigrants contribute to the economy, you say. True enough. But you could say that to lefties who qualify for ACA subsidies. Defense contractors. Wall Street. Banks. Big business. The reasons why immigrants find opportunities here in the first place.

      I don’t oppose amnesty. But it seems libertarians are willing to bend the principles on the immigration issue just a bit to a advance their agenda.

      1. I didn’t realize INS existed from the getgo. Where is that agency authorized in the Constitution?

      2. Also, freedom of movement is absolutely a natural right. Whether or not you violate someone else’s property or rights has no bearing on this.

  24. I’m a little torn on this. I’m a little tired of having one set of rules for people who do what they are supoosed to do (ie follow our immigration laws and procedures, buy houses they can afford, etc) and then setting aside those rules for people who ignore them. On the other hand, these actions display an important lesson about government to all. If I thought this lesson would cause people to mimic the illegals and tell the US government to take their laws and shove them up their ass, I might be able to get on board. Alas, I do not think this will be the case.

    1. I’ll drink to that.

  25. I’m going to be a contrarian here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..egislation

    Anything jump out at you? How about the fact that immigration restrictions seem to start right before, and increase in severity throughout, the Progressive era?

    To me it seems that the restriction of immigration and the country’s biggest lurch toward socialism, went hand-in-hand.

    1. It did. LBJ actually brought some-some-sanity back to immigration in 1965. This is another Proggie tenet swallowed whole by conservatives.

      1. LBJ’s changes also introduce the first restrictions on Mexican immigration.

        So not a complete improvement.

  26. “‘Can’t make this up’! NC NAACP tells voter ID protesters to bring photo ID to Moral March [pics]

    “…As bused-in protesters and professional agitators prepared to promote their progressive causes ? including oh-so-racist voter ID requirements ? the state NAACP told participants make sure to have photo ID handy “at all times.” According to the “Important Dos and Don’ts for Marchers!!!” you should bring a “driver’s license, passport or other valid photo id” to the march.”

    http://twitchy.com/2014/02/08/…..arch-pics/

    1. If you guys aren’t familiar with William Barber, the NC NAACP president, you are missing out on the entertainment value of one dumb motherfucker.

      1. He obviously has an insidious white-supremacist agenda if he’s requiring photo IDs.

  27. What is going to happen as Hispanic immigration continues, and their percentage of the population increases?

    I would guess the following:

    – Higher taxes to facilitate income redistribution in order to reduce income inequality

    – Higher taxes to fund pre-K and other educational programs in order to reduce income inequality and provide equal opportunity.

    – Higher taxes to fund increased spending on healthcare

    – Increased pressure to hire minorities for important positions based on skin color rather than merit in order to obtain the right level of representation.

    – Police will be softer on crime in order to avoid having too many minorities in prison (probably doesn’t matter to folks at Reason).

    – Increased racial animosity. Rise in White power groups.

    – Lowering of wages for those who are already at the bottom.

    – Cheaper goods and services.

    But at least they have their freedom of movement. And all that spending will eventually collapse the economy. Which is a good thing, since when this happens the country always starts over as a libertarian paradise. A lower quality of life in the meantime is a small price to pay.

    1. You musy be a KKK troll… the shit you describe is reality now. SMFH

    2. Lies,

      A hispanic majority has led CA to libtopia.

  28. It’s not the Republicans as much as it is the American people who do not want immigration reform. They have inundated congress with phone calls, letters and faxes letting them know that any immigration reform other than enforcing our existing laws will cost them their jobs.

    When CNN or any other media outlet says 68% of Americans want reform ,they are lying through their teeth.

    The Republican Party is the party of big business and when you have the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and most corporations pushing for more H1B Visa’s when out unemployment rate is 20% or higher (They lie about that too!) then you know it’s not the Republican Party that’s really stopping this. The American people are awake and they know that there are only two reasons Washington is once again pushing for immigration reform which has never worked in the last two attempts because they have no intention of enforcing the laws to begin with.

    Cheap labor at the expense of American jobs is the only way these companies can compete globally. Instead of fixing our trade imbalances to remedy this, they choose instead to use cheap labor and destroy the American middle class in the process.

    Part 1

  29. For decades now, America has had the largest consumer base in the world which has driven markets worldwide. The buying power of the American middle class is what keeps American companies profitable. The wealthy 1% can only buy so many socks, cars, meals etc.

    Any changes to the existing immigration laws will not change anything other than continue with the destruction of the middle class in America. And, in doing so, these companies will collapse. A correction in the markets are way overdue and when it happens, there will be more Americans out of work, inflation will get out of control and the Federal Reserve will not be able to do anything to correct it this time.

    If, our existing immigration laws were enforced, our border secured and no welfare provided to illegal immigrants, and more Americans given jobs again, then and only then will this country recover. Unfortunately, our government is controlled by special interest and they only care about profits and not the future of this country.
    Part 2

  30. And now the fucking mouthbreathers are joining in.

    WE NEED TO CONTROL THE LABOR MARKET. CENTRAL PLANNING IS THE PATH TO PROSPERITY. TRADE IS BAD. HURRDUUR.

    Odds are that when this country finally perishes from ever increasing socialism, they’ll still be blaming it on foreigners.

    1. I don’t blame foreigners for taking a good deal when they see it, and behaving in a democracy the only way they know how. I do blame our own people who seek to seal socialism’s victory by using those foreigners, though. And our own people so blinded by ideology that they can’t see the sledgehammer about to slam into their heads.

      1. Labor in the UK admitted they wanted more immigration to get more votes.

      2. Yes, because we’re totally not getting fucked by the state right now.

        A nation filled with first generation immigrants would never have bought into “the government is us”/”yes we can” narrative so readily gobbled up by our natives.

        California and Texas have the same percentage of mexican immigrants. One of them is a huge socialist shithole. Guess what the differentiator is.

        1. California whites are much more liberal.

          But the difference between Texas and California Hispanics is minimal.

          And that’s the point. No matter where they are they vote overwhelmingly liberal. And as Hispanics grow in terms of percentage of population, the states they reside in and the nation as a whole will become more liberal.

          The liberals are going to run wild. Maybe in several generations time things will change, but in the meantime things won’t be pleasant.

          But I don’t want to hear any complaining from posters on Reason, because they supported it.

          1. That’s funny, cause that’s not how they vote here in Texas.

            Or maybe you missed the last few elections where the majority of people all over the state voted republican.

            1. Texas appears to be an anomaly in this regards.

              Everywhere else in the country from CA to NY to FL to IL hispanics overwhelmingly favor larger government and wealth transfer programs. It should be telling to libertarians that the 2 republicans who did best with the group electorally were Nixon and the lesser Bush.

            2. Link?

              The only results I have seen recently show heavy preference for Dems among the Hispanics in Texas.

              Bush got a decent percentage, but he wasn’t exactly conservative.

  31. Even the Communists ended up keeping borders. Remember the big Comintern debate over international socialism vs. attempting socialism in one country?

    1. Question for open border types, if the US moved to a skills based system but let more people in, would that be an okay compromise?

      1. Anything that moves us towards freer immigration is a win in my book. If people want to take small steps in that direction I’ll encourage them. What criteria is used is something I’m mostly agnostic about.

        Enough of the country is economically illiterate to make your idea a non-starter though.

    2. Harun|2.8.14 @ 7:56PM|#
      “Even the Communists ended up keeping borders.”

      They HAD to, otherwise everyone would have scrammed.

  32. I think those who say the open border stance would result in a one party system are making an understatement. It would result in us being invaded. (and not terk-er-jerbs invaded, like actually invaded) That should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history.

    If you let in everyone, you let in the people who want to see your head on a pike.

    1. Hi mister historian.

      – Unlimited immigration from 1776 to 1875
      – Unlimited non-chinese immigration from 1875 to 1924.
      – Unlimited immigration from Mexico from 1924 to 1965.

      The country fucking survived, didn’t it?

      Read this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..#Enactment and marvel at how you’re basically repeating the arguments of paranoid (and legitimately racist) early 20th century progressives:

      However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation

      Oh, I’m sorry. They were worried about european and asian invaders, you’re worried about mexican invaders. That’s totally different!

      Maybe, just maybe, your fear of foreigners is a symptom of being a statist.

      1. Well, I’m no historian but it seems to me that the USA has a substantially different ability to absorb large numbers of immigrants 2014 than it did in 1776 to 1885, 1875 to 1924, and 1924 to 1965.

        One issue is the welfare state, which accelerated mightily with the Great Society, kicking in around 1965.

        Comparing the USA in 2014 with the USA in 1776 is just silly.

        There was a lot of room to expand in 1885 and the country was rapidly industrializing then. I don’t see the possibility of similar growth these days. But again, I’m no historian.

      2. Oh, and of course, those who disagree are not only wrong but wrong because they are statist racists. Do libertarians think make logical points by namecalling? I had hoped not but could be wrong.

        Someone said that libertarians are just liberals with better vocabularies. Reading Christophe’s screed inclines me to agree.

      3. The country fucking survived, didn’t it?

        Not really, the children of the late 19th and early 20th century immigrants transformed the country with FDR into a semi-fascist empire.

        1. Yeah, but those were mostly Europeans 😛

  33. I don’t see why the only two options are amnesty or massive policing. We can end draconian immigration enforcement without making everybody who is here illegally into a citizen. Large employers could still be limited in their ability to employ visa–less workers, preventing whole-sale importation of laber. That would leave people who come here without a visa in a category of people who can’t take advantage of our welfare state but otherwise are tolerated. It would end the massive waste of money and intrusions into civil liberties that come along with immigration enforcement without really encouraging more migration than we already have.

    1. Shhh, that’s a sensible plan that people on both sides will be against.

    2. Yes. You are making sense on the internet. Better watch your back!

  34. I have made this argument before but I will do it again for those who may have missed it.

    The southern US border – from El Paso to San Diego – is freaking huge, expansive, and unbelievably REMOTE stretch of wasteland. Almost all of it is several hours drive from anything most Americans would call habitation.

    I have spent many days driving, hiking, camping, and hunting within an easy day’s walk from that border between west Texas and south Arizona. Even if we did put up a fence you would need about ten thousand full time officers to attempt to enforce it. Most of the border is so far away from any concentration of people that they could drive a truck bomb up to the fence, blow a hole in it, and nobody would hear it.

    I have done E&E (escape and evasion) training in the military and can tell you that getting through that border – because of its remoteness – is pretty easy for anybody with the motivation. You could choose a ten mile stretch anywhere along it, put a regiment of whatever troops you want on it and I could still walk through that area with few problems.

    People who talk about “securing the border” don’t have the first clue what they are talking about.

    1. OK. But, there are also the laws being ‘unequally’ enforced in urban areas. Police are not able to ask for proof of citizenship – banks can provide services to illegal citizens – rampant welfare fraud is taking place (5 identities for 1 illegal is common) – and there is an unwritten law that it’s a waste of time to even try enforcing regular laws under which we are ALL supposed to be living.
      How is that for “equality?”
      I don’t like laws inhibiting the free movement of labor.
      But, I don’t like unequal enforcement of general laws more.
      First get rid of the welfare state – then we can allow labor to move freely.
      Priorities.

      1. He just explained that the priority of physically keeping immigrants out is a fantasy. Even more so than your idea that immigrants are a net suck on the economy.

  35. I find it amusing that so many partisans here spend so much time attempting to secure the border at Hit & Run. Are they afraid that the PROGS ARE TERKIN THER CERMENTS?

  36. Whatever happens on this issue, rest assured, the subjects of the State are going to get bent over just like we always do.

  37. If Republicans are really the party of free trade and limited government

    Well, they’re not. They have been the party of big business and economic protectionism. Remember that the party was founded to place politicians friendly to protectionist tariffs and other impediments to competition.

  38. Re: C4LCNCPLS,

    […] when you have the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and most corporations pushing for more H1B Visa’s when out unemployment rate is 20% or higher (They lie about that too!) then you know it’s not the Republican Party that’s really stopping this.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporations have asked for increases in the H1B visa quotas since a long time, C. The fact is that the political history of the U.S. has seen alternated control of Congress and/or the Senate by either of the two parties, yet there hasn’t been a significant increase in the number of H1B visas issued each year.

    Besides, the demand for labor does not always correlate with the employment rate as labor is not homogeneous; you can’t simply grab a person from the worker pool as if every human was a universal widget. The kind of labor that these companies are looking for is usually in short supply in the U.S., which compels companies to seek labor from other places.

    The fact is that the economically ignorant see employment as a right, and jobs as the collective property of natural-born citizens, completely contrary to reality and morality.

  39. “they’ll take this opportunity to welcome immigrants while rolling back the welfare state” You don’t get it. If they are smart they would energize their base and stand on the hard decisions that need to be made.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.