Immigration

Jeb Bush is Right: Illegal Immigration—Like Legal Immigration—is an "Act of Love"

|

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) is shaking things up in Republican Party politics. At the same moment that he is being discussed by some as a savior for the Party of Lincoln come 2016, he lays down this beautiful beat to a Fox News reporter at an event at his dad's presidential library:

"The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn't come legally … and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work, to be able to provide for their family, yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony.

"It's an act of love, it's an act of commitment to your family.

Bush, 61, added: "I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime. There should be a price paid, but it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families."

Read the whole account via Reuters.

What Jeb said. 

If the GOP faithful cannot understand, empathize, and deal with the 12 million or so illegals in the country—except to tell them to get the hell out, build a wall that would have made Erich Honecker proud, and mandate a worker verification system that will be a nightmare on tech and constitutional grounds—they will forever write off the votes not simply of Latinos but most Americans. A 2013 Reason-Rupe Poll found that 70 percent of people favored letting illegals stay and get on a path to citizenship (55 percent), gain legal residency (4 percent), or become guest workers (11 percent). Of course they do: Even people who feel threatened by newcomers recognize that immigration isn't simply in the DNA of America, it is the DNA of America.

We've all heard the standard line: "I don't mind immigration, it's the illegal part of it I don't like." Each time a Republican says that without then explaining how they plan to expand legal immigration, you know that he is full of it on the immigration issue.

In fact, the Republicans are so full of it on this issue that they have come to embrace a nightmare mandatory program, E-Verify, that "turns work into a privilege and empowers the surveillance state." This comes after complaining (rightly!) about Obamacare's individual mandate and that law's reach into people's privacy.

At the same time, the Republicans have let a potent political issue to slip through their fingers. President Barack Obama is the worst president in terms of deporting immigrants, but he and the Democrats are getting a free ride on the issue thanks to the GOP's atavistic anti-Hispanic rhetoric (Iowa's Steve King, anyone?).

Courtesy Georgetown Book Shop.

From yesterday's New York Times:

The records show the largest increases were in deportations involving illegal immigrants whose most serious offense was listed as a traffic violation, including driving under the influence. Those cases more than quadrupled from 43,000 during the last five years of President George W. Bush's administration to 193,000 during the five years Mr. Obama has been in office. In that same period, removals related to convictions for entering or re-entering the country illegally tripled under Mr. Obama to more than 188,000….

"For years, the Obama administration's spin has been that they are simply deporting so-called 'criminal aliens,' but the numbers speak for themselves," said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. "In truth, this administration — more than any other — has devastated immigrant communities across the country, tearing families away from loved ones, simply because they drove without a license, or re-entered the country desperately trying to be reunited with their family members."

If the GOP can't flesh out Rand Paul's pledge to illegals—if you want to work here, "we will find a place for you"—with a serious proposal, well, it was nice knowing them.

Must-read: Ed Krayewski's "5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants."

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.

184 responses to “Jeb Bush is Right: Illegal Immigration—Like Legal Immigration—is an "Act of Love"

  1. …and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work, to be able to provide for their family, yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony.

    The GOP wants an Inspector Javert.

    1. Yup, have families first and THEN figure out how to “provide for their families.”

    2. He’s right, I do believe it’s a misdemeanor. They are issued citations.

      1. Yes it’s only a misdemeanor. HOWEVER, ALL of the illegals (with the exception of the ones you pick up at home depots for contract work) have committed FELONIES. Why? Because when they apply for a job they have to fill in a social security number and they use fake or STOLEN social security numbers (even using an unstolen fake one is a felony).

        It’s infuriating that Americans who do the same crime go to jail for years, while illegals are almost NEVER punished for this (because it’s assumed they all commit this felony). Just another case of preferential treatment for illegals over citizens.

        What’s shocking is that libertarians want to doom their chance at ever having their ideology in power, by welcoming in millions of socialist felons.

        1. Jingo, U B on to something. I think 0’s SS number is also ‘borrowed’. There’s the real crime & felony that Congress needs for impeachment.

          Good post. Thanks.

          SamFOx

  2. …except to tell them to get the hell out, build a wall that would have made Erich Honecker proud,…

    for a second there, I had to re-read what was in the address bar. That is the sort of bullshit I have come to expect from proggie sites. Yes, Nick, you love open borders but comparing those who would want an orderly system of dealing with immigration to the Stasi is about as intellectually honest as claiming the AGW skeptics are anti-science.

    1. Yeah it is ridiculous. As if the USA and East Germany were the only countries in history without open borders.

      1. lao83, illegally enter Mexico & tell us how it goes. How open are their N & S borders?

        I’d love to see the pro illegal groups parade around demanding & signing up for all the stuff from the Mexican govt they demand & sign up for here.

        Hey, illegal supporters, go on down & give it a shot.

        You don’t have the stones. Cowards.

        You only do that jive time here because the fed govt is working to collapse the USA & using you as one part of a many pronged attack & collapse the USA assault front.

        So they give you a pass. Then we get the emotional song & dance that is supposed to manipulate us into submission. Been posting at to many prog sites to be an easy to manipulate Homer Simpson like you people.

        SamFox

    2. What are you talking about? You *already* have an orderly system for dealing with immigration.

      Legal immigration is not some chaotically random chance thing, its a very long, drawn out and very orderly process. Screw up one step and you get to start the whole thing over. Lots and lots of order here.

      The problem is not even that successful navigation of this system is a multi-year process.

      The problem that leads to massive illegal immigration is that its effectively *impossible* to successfully navigate through the system if you aren’t a)rich, b)highly educated.

      The quota limit for unskilled workers is 66,000/yr – total, and that is divided up between the 190+ countries that exist.

      1. Maybe the people in those 190+ countries should improve themselves where they are since immigration to the US can’t solve all their problems

        1. Yeah, why can’t those damn Irish just grow something other than potatoes?

          1. Isn’t one of the selling points of immigration that it allows the best and the brightest of the world to come here? And if that is true, and history says it is, isn’t the reverse also true? I am not sure we have done Mexico any favors by accepting all of their motivated and dissatisfied people. It has allowed their corrupt elite to tell the population “if you don’t like it, go the fuck to the US.”

            1. “I am not sure we have done Mexico any favors by accepting all of their motivated and dissatisfied people. It has allowed their corrupt elite to tell the population “if you don’t like it, go the fuck to the US.””

              Collectivist bullshit is bullshit. So a country’s citizens belong to the state? Is that what you’re arguing?

              1. It is not collectivist at all. If immigration is about love and everything but US interests, then what we are doing to other countries by allowing it is relevant. If it is just about what is best for the US and getting the best people to come here, fine but shut the fuck up about how it is so good for foreigners.

                Whose interests matter here, the US’s or everyone else? If it is everyone else and immigration is some moral issue, then the interests of other countries should matter.

                1. immigration is about love and everything but US interests

                  But no one is saying that.

            2. I am not sure we have done Mexico any favors by accepting all of their motivated and dissatisfied people.

              Who the fuck cares? That’s how America was built, by head-hunting. It’s not my fault that Nazi Germany was stupid enough to toss out their best physicists because they were Jewish, and I’m damn glad they decided to seek refugee here as opposed to the Soviet Union.

              1. Who the fuck cares?

                I agree Who cares. But if the standard is who the fuck cares about anything but the US, then why should I give a fuck about the people who come here?

                I am all for not caring about the rest of the world. If we are going to do that, and I think we should, then open borders people need to stop making moral arguments about immigration and start making arguments about how it is in our interests.

                If you don’t care about Mexico and Mexicans, great, neither do I. But when you do that, then stop caring about them.

                1. No, you misinterpret. I care a great deal about Mexicans, as fellow human beings. I couldn’t give a toss about the federal republic known as, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the United Mexican States.

                  1. But the Republic of Mexico is the human beings who live there. The people who are left behind matter too don’t they? By accepting all of these immigrants we are effectively propping up these corrupt societies.

                    Again, that doesn’t bother me because we should do what is right for this country and not worry about other countries. If I thought immigration were a moral issue, however, it sure as hell would bother me.

                    1. the Republic of Mexico is the human beings who live there

                      I reject that reification. The Mexican republic is an abstraction. It is merely a convenient term we used to talk about the concept of control through implied deadly force.

                    2. HM,

                      It is not an abstraction. It is a real place full of real people. if it is just an “abstraction” it would be okay to bomb them. I mean, hey we are bombing the abstraction. If our doing so affects actual people, well too bad.

                      If our immigration policy’s affect on the people of Mexico has no bearing in the debate, then why are things like trade sanctions so wrong? We are just sanctioning the country. If it hurts the economy of Mexico and by extension the people who live there, so what?

                      My point is that I don’t see how you can say it is okay for our policies to do harm to people in Mexico because hey “the ROM is just an abstraction”. That is true. But that doesn’t change how our policies harm actual people, if only indirectly.

                    3. It is not an abstraction. It is a real place full of real people.

                      No, Mexico is a real place full of people. Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos is an abstraction.

                    4. So a citizen of a country should be forced to stay against his will for the good of the collective? Thats N. Korean and Cuban level bullshit.

                    5. So a citizen of a country should be forced to stay against his will for the good of the collective?

                      Since when is our not taking them “forcing them to stay”? Is Mexico forcing me to stay in the US by not granting me determinant residency, which they wouldn’t in a million years by the way?

                      The old Communists used to call immigration brain drain. And in some ways they had a point. The West absolutely hoped to undermine their economies and ability to fight the cold war by stealing all of their good people.

                      Now, that was a good thing because making life harder for communist economies helped stop the ideology from spreading. I am not sure what making life hard for Latin American economies helps.

                      Again, I don’t agree with the idea that we owe it to Mexico or anyone else not to take their best people if they want to come here. But, I don’t look at immigration as a moral issue. You guys do.

                    6. Immigration is a moral issue for exactly the same reasons as telling people how they can or can’t spend their own money is a moral issue

                    7. You are arguing that inaction is action.

                    8. Red tony strikes again!

                    9. But the Republic of Mexico is the human beings who live there.

                      A government is not the subjects who are parasitized by it.

                      A country is not the government that rules it.

            3. Vicente Fox said Mexicans have a human right to live in the US because they Western Union home half their paycheck.

          2. Lynch, hey, you forget that they grow some good whiskey? 🙂

            SamFox

      2. Illegal immigration has absolutely nothing to do with flaws in the legal immigration system. Maybe Nick and other cosmotarians could stop sounding like the left in acting as though the Mexicans are singularly incapable of following the same system used by everyone else seeking a better life here. And along the way, he might acknowledge that the welfare state contributes mightily to the illegal end of immigration.

        1. Illegal immigration is *completely* about the way the legal immigration system is set up.

          And, spoiler alert, its not just Mexicans here – 66,000 H2B visas *total* for the entire world. Each little country gets a percentage of them and if your country doesn’t use them up they don’t go to another that wants more.

          Contrary to Minute Man propaganda, illegal immigrants find it really difficult to enjoy the fruits of the welfare state.

          Illegal immigrants *avoid* contact with the government as much as possible to avoid being noticed, arrested (excuse me, *detained*), and then deported.

          Social Security – they’re not going to see a dime of it. See that SSN number Jose is using? So are 500 other people. The US government is more than happy to take the withholding of illegals, but once you want to *claim* that shit, the SS administration is going to start looking into it.

          1. Contrary to Minute Man propaganda, illegal immigrants find it really difficult to enjoy the fruits of the welfare state.

            Not so much. Their access to the apparatus of the welfare state is mostly via their children, and the states with the highest concentrations of illegal immigrants not only don’t check immigration status, but actually reach out to the immigrant communities to court their participation in state programs. TANF != “welfare” in the United States.

            1. Very broad overgeneralizations there. Not every illegal immigrant has citizen children here, and I don’t think the latter thing you describe is nearly as common as you think it is. California, despite being a very left-wing state and having the largest population of illegal immigrants, has the lowest (or nearly the lowest) rate of participation in SNAP. Less than half of ELIGIBLE people participate. If large numbers of illegal immigrants were participating, those rates go down even further. I find it very hard to believe that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants are using SNAP when not even half of eligible people here are using it.

              1. Not every illegal immigrant has citizen children here

                I never suggested that, but uh, yeah, that’s unambiguously true. Strawman slayed. Not every illegal immigrant has to have citizen children in order for the access of most illegal immigrants to the welfare system to be through children (the same likely holds true for all recipients of welfare – strangely enough, a lot of welfare programs are justified on the basis of taking care of children. Some intrepid libertarian should start a meme on the subject).

                SNAP also != “welfare” in America. And also isn’t a state program, which was what I specifically referenced. But ironically, it does provide an example of the immigrant community outreach I was talking about.

                1. The benefits are for the children, which is why immigration status of parents isn’t checked. II don’t think the SCOTUS would allow a law that denied citizen children benefits if their parents are illegal immigrants, regardless of what you or I think. Anecdotes aren’t much of an argument, and don’t refute the point Agammamnon made. Raising a kid in the US costs a lot more than whatever you’re going to get in SNAP benefits for them, assuming you can/do even get them. And I’m not sure how you would change any of this short of repealing the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment, which is never going to happen.

                  I didn’t say SNAP was equal to all welfare, but it is an example of a non-TANF program, and one of the biggest welfare programs in the US. SNAP is a federal program, but it isdistributed by each state’s Division of Social Services (or whatever their equivalent is).

                  1. Calidis, if you do the research you’ll find the birthright citizenship ‘anchor baby’ thing is a twisting of the 14th Amendment.

                    http://www.rense.com/general95/sts_dev.htm

                    Thanks.

                    SamFox

        2. Mexicans aren’t singularly incapable of following the system. Other countries just happen to be separated from the U.S. by 1) Mexico, or 2) an ocean, so Mexicans are singularly well positioned to circumvent the system.

          1. “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States”

            /Jose Lopez Portillo

            (IIRC)

        3. Illegal immigration has absolutely nothing to do with flaws in the legal immigration system.

          Now that is just silly. The relevant flaw in the legal immigration system is that far to few unskilled are allowed in to meet demand for cheap labor. That has everything to do with illegal immigration.

    3. Meh, it’s Gillespie and that’s sort of his thing.
      The comparison to the wall isn’t completely on target, as the East German walls were mostly to keep people in. But, if you are just talking about the walls themselves, there are a good number of people in the US who would like to build a wall of a scale that I’m sure Honecker would have loved to have been able to do.

    4. Keerist in a bucket, are your reading skills that poor? He’s talking about the wall, just the wall, and nothing more. Not the Stasi, not communism, not anything else.

  3. Jeb Bush should just STFU.

    NO MORE BUSH!

  4. It’s the institution of the family that I worship. Real families can die in a ditch for all I care. [/GOP so-con]

  5. I’m all in favor of relaxing our immigration policy, but selectively enforcing the law based on feelings is arbitrary rule.

    1. The problem is that it is absolutely impossible to fully enforce the immigration laws without becoming a total police state where everyone must carry papers at all times.

      1. Bingo!

  6. Last night, I ran across this ninety year old H.L. Mencken quote lamenting the “native” American response of his day to immigrants:
    “The fact that (immigrants) increase is the best hope of civilization in America. They shake the old race out of its spiritual lethargy, and introduce it to disquiet and experiment. They make for a free play of ideas. In opposing the process, whether in politics, in letters or in the ages-old struggle toward the truth, the prophets of Anglo-Saxon purity and tradition only make themselves ridiculous.”

    1. “”””They make for a free play of ideas.”””

      Yes in his day the immigrants brought the ideas of socialism, communism, progressives, big government, nanny state to the US. We still suffering from that.

      1. Are you saying, then, that these imported ideas were superior to the ideas of free enterprise and individual rights? Else why would they gain such traction? Or did the natives just do a piss-poor job of explaining American exceptionalism by standing by while the anti-intellectuals of the day trashed the Irish, Orientals,Poles, Italians, Russian Jews, and anyone else who came here and worked harder than they did?

      2. It wasn’t *immigrants* that brought the ideas of socialism/communism and big government to the US.

        Those were native-born Americans who looked over at Europe and places east and liked the potential for personal power those ideas represented.

        IME – people who grew up under actual communist states are pretty damn *anti-communist*.

        You know who does agitate for bigger state/socialism/communism? People who were born in this country (and have ancestors born in this country as far back as living memory can recall) who believe that the world owes them a living and the government is just the group of guys to help make that happen.

        1. You know who does agitate for bigger state/socialism/communism? People who were born in this country (and have ancestors born in this country as far back as living memory can recall) who believe that the world owes them a living and the government is just the group of guys to help make that happen.

          ^^^THIS^^^

          You don’t see too many “brown people” at OWS camps.

          1. You see plenty of them at labor union rallies though.

            1. How many of them are there because they were offered 5 bucks to stand there with a sign? Not saying all of them are. No race or nationality has a monopoly on statist derp.

              1. Point being everybody’s got their hobby horse. The whole “immigrants don’t use welfare and aren’t motivated by self interest and want to bring every American a puppy and become anarcho-capitalists” shit that gets tossed around whenever an immigration thread pops up is beyond retarded, as if immigrants had somehow conquered human nature and ushered in the age of New Libertarian Man. Assholes and statists make up the majority of everybody, immigrants and natives included. That privileged white college pricks and poor brown dirt farmers show up at different rallies is more a function of class than politics.

                1. “immigrants don’t use welfare and aren’t motivated by self interest and want to bring every American a puppy and become anarcho-capitalists”

                  Except no one ever says anything remotely like that at all. Of course they come completely out of self interest. Many see hard work as the best way to advance their interests, some, I’m sure want welfare benefits.

                  1. Except no one ever says anything remotely like that at all.

                    You should be careful with words like “no one” when you’re mainly just referring to yourself. Or else maybe read a little more carefully. Clearly I’m using an exaggeration, but yes, it is a very common argument among the Reason commentariat that immigrants are harder working than their native counterparts, less likely to be motivated by state largesse, and singularly focused on bettering themselves and their families, primarily if not solely through libertarian means. It’s an odd contrast considering the general opinion among the very same people of the great American trailer trash welfare queen. That’s not to say there’s no such thing as the great American trailer trash welfare queen, just that they don’t only come in one color or nationality.

                    1. You may also be reading a bit much into people’s comments.
                      I haven’t seen any comment suggesting that immigrants come to the US for any reason besides self interest.
                      The degree to which immigrants take advantage of welfare is pretty unclear, but no one denies that it happens at all. The question is, does it matter? Is it any worse for an undeserving Mexican to get welfare benefits than for a undeserving American? I don’t think so.

                      You are right, I should just speak for myself. But I think that the general sentiment among those of us who favor more free immigration is that the fact that some immigrants use welfare is not a counter to the property rights arguments for more or less open immigration. The welfare state is a problem with or without immigrants.

                    2. Unfortunately, I guess because of the state of the public discourse on the matter, a lot of libertarians devolve into utilitarian rationalizations and cries of xenophobia whenever the subject is discussed, and in the heat of battle any nuance of opinion seems to get lost. I agree with you though, the welfare state is no more justified for John Smith than Juan Rodriguez. Its implications on the immigration debate are worth considering, but not in the usual context of “socialism for me but none for thee” that seems to permeate the subject on the right.

      3. To be polite, DJF, you’re off your fucking rocker. Anyone who knows anything about the history of progressivism knows that it was an ideology created, and supported by, mostly old New Englander/East Coast elites who could trace their ancestry back to the Colonial period. Or are the Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin, still suspect, the Dutch speaking bastards!

        1. And progressive Democrats like Wilson and FDR had overwhelming support from white natives in the South, who were primarily descended from colonial British (including Scots-Irish) settlers.

      4. Wasn’t the progressive movement an outgrowth of white, protestant, upper class, (native-born) America?

      5. Yes in his day the immigrants brought the ideas of socialism, communism, progressives, big government, nanny state to the US. We still suffering from that.

        Interesting… so there were no native born socialists, communists, progressives, or fascists (i.e. collectivists) in this country. They all came over from somewhere else. I never realized that before…

        Probably because it’s bullshit.

      6. Yeah, no native-born Anglo-Saxon ever supported socialism.

        *Rolls eyes*

    2. Cultural exchanges are probably excellent for the soul of a country and these interactions help disinfect the pallor of racism.

      But, potentially dying in a scorching desert just to stand and beg at a Home Depot for a 5-buck job illustrates to me that something is seriously out of whack on the Mexico side in terms of over-idealizing the American ‘dream’ and way of life. America isn’t heaven and someone obviously isn’t telling the Mexicans this.

      1. Except that these people *do communicate over the border – if life in America didn’t offer the potential for significant improvement then they’d stop coming.

        Like the drop-off in illegal immigration during the recession.

        And not all those guys standing in the sun looking for day-labor are from Mexico – lots come from further south and even poorer circumstances.

        Hondurans are the Mexicans of Mexico.

        1. lots come from further south and even poorer circumstances.

          Probably not as many as you’d think. Mexico’s immigration laws are pretty stringent, and they put up a fence on the Guatemala border to keep immigrants out.

          1. That doesn’t mean many don’t get through. There are millions of Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadoreans, etc. in the US and a very large portion of them came to the US through Mexico

  7. “”””The “danged fence” of John McCain’s dreams””””

    I am sure that is McCain’s dream fence, a rusty old fence that probably could not keep out a determined 10 year old

    The only time McCain mentions fences is when he is up for reelection and when he is pushing his latest amnesty plan. And I am sure that his buddy Chucky Schumer agrees

  8. He’s so empathetic about non-citizens… I wonder what sort of empathy he’s extended to the many thousands of non-violent offenders who actually are citizens who wallow in the Florida prison system under mandatory minimum sentencing?

    Jeb Bush is a sack of waste with a fucking delusional pie-hole slapped on it.

    1. You aren’t up for another run of “compassionate Conservatism”?

      1. Show me a compassionate conservative, and I’ll show you a big government liberal who talks the conservative talk about abortion.

      2. It usually ends up with bombing foreigners and next time it will probably end up with bombing everyone.

        1. As opposed to passionate Progrssivism which ends in bombing foreign people. But progressive bombs are filled with love.

          1. Why do you make us bomb you? You know we love you baby, but sometimes you make us so mad.

      3. The term ‘compassionate Conservatism’ literally makes me want to vomit projectiles.

        1. The problem with ‘compassionate Conservatism’ is that there is nothing compassionate about it. True compassionate Conservatism would have people standing on their own two feet instead of leaning on the government. Anything that increases dependency is not compassionate.

        2. *Tilts Agile Cyborg toward enemy position*

          “Psst – ‘compassionate conservatism'”

          *stream of projectiles wipes position out*

          HURRAH!

  9. Jeb Bush looks like Tom Brokaw and Philip Seymour Hoffman had a love child!

    1. It is the one legitimate claim to being a victim of sexism Hillary Clinton has. People talk about how she is old or how her clothes and hair look as if that matters. Yet, the media never notices that male politicians look like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Henry Waxman.

      1. Male politicians’ age (Reagan) or appearance (Christie) or clothes (Obama)do get commented on. In Hillary’s case, it seems to run the other way where even noticing her age or clothes is taken as sexism .

        (Commenting on Waxman’s appearance would be like picking on the retarded kid in the wheelchair.)

        1. But men can get old and bald and as long as they wear a good suit and shave, no one cares. People really do rip on Christie for being fat. So there is that. But no one would ever say Obama needs to change his hair or wear different suits.

          1. But no one would ever say Obama needs to change his hair or wear different suits.

            I would, and I do. Whoever Obama’s tailor is has no fucking clue as how to cut the sleeves correctly on his suitcoats. Obama consistently looks like a 5-year-old playing dress up in his daddy’s clothes.

            1. Obama consistently looks like a 5-year-old playing dress up in his daddy’s clothes.

              And he acts like a 5 year old playing “president.” So it fits.

          2. I guess it depends on who’s commenting. Obama has been mocked for wearing “mom jeans”.

            There is a kind of conventional view that women are judged on appearance, while men are not. And that’s not true. (Scott Brown having the physique to have posed nude certainly hasn’t hurt him.) It seems to me that there is an element of “poor me, I have to work so hard to be judged on the style of my hair or the clothes I wear, and that’s not fair.” I may be wrong, but above some base level of hygiene and conventional style, it’s not that big a deal. What is a big deal is noticing a woman’s clothes or hair at all because that’s sexism.

            1. You are right now that I think about it that men are more subjected to that kind of bullshit than they once were.

              Twenty years ago a fat doofus like Bill Clinton could get elected President. I am not sure that a male like that could now.

              1. Could a man in a wheel chair be elected, now that we are so much more enlightened.

      2. I don’t know if it would be any consolation to Hillary, but it probably helps her ambitions that she’s not young and attractive. There was a recent controlled study that showed that attractive entrepreneurial women are least likely to get investor backing after a presentation, while attractive males get the most. I assume campaigning would be the same, especially since we know that attractive male presidential candidates tend to fare better.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch…..fare-best/

        1. attractive male presidential candidates tend to fare better.

          As someone who was a 6’2″ and 145 pound bean pole in high school, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that men are judged on appearance.

      3. Watch it John, when I lived in Florida in ’08, I went into my polling place and somebody thought I was Jeb Bush.

  10. 70 percent of people favored letting illegals stay and get on a path to citizenship (55 percent), gain legal residency (4 percent), or become guest workers (11 percent)

    Racist Reason-Rupe calling the undocumented “illegals”. I bet the first draft said “wetbacks”.

    Has anyone ever polled the people in question to see if they prefer “a path to citizenship” over “the freedom to travel and work”?

    1. Has anyone ever polled the people in question to see if they prefer “a path to citizenship” over “the freedom to travel and work”?

      I’ll bet you come from a planet where a Cosmotarian once made an honest statement about immigration. It sure ain’t this one.

      1. Why do you hate brown people?

        “As a libertarian I don’t support this statist bipartisan comprehensive reform bill but everyone else against it is a protectionist, nativist, xenophobic RACIST”

        1. SIV getting chummy with the resident “neoreactionary.” Why am I not surprised?

          1. Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I’ll be glad to mail a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

    2. My own experience with illegals is that it’s mostly single young men looking for work in order to send money back home to their families. But I live near Atlanta, not the Southwest. I understand that it’s more common there for entire families to move here and apply for welfare programs. I’m assuming the illegal immigrants in Pennsylvania and Oregon and Nebraska have different demographics as well.

      It’s difficult to argue about illegal immigration when you have either a particularized local knowledge which may not reflect the big picture or no knowledge whatsoever but just go by whatever crap you read on the internet.

      As far as my experience goes, poor people who leave their family, friends and everything they know behind in order to come to a country where they don’t speak the language and don’t know the customs or the culture just for the opportunity to bust their ass for a better life for themselves and their families have already aced the citizenship test. They are more American than most Americans.

      1. Of course, sadly, demanding a government handout as a birthright is becoming more and more American, too. Maybe the families coming here just for the welfare are the real Americans.

      2. Between 1880 and 1910 the population of my city doubled with just the kind of people you describe, coming from central and eastern Europe to work in the steel mills and coal mines. After work they went to the social club (bar) with everyone from the home country and on Sunday attended church services in their native language (Polish, Slovak, Ukrainian, Serbian, Hungarian, Slovenian, Syrian & others). Their English wasn’t so good and their kids had funny first names, but the kids all had perfect English. And they came through Ellis Island, legally.

        I believe we do need to increase the numbers of legal immigrants to match the demand. If the front door is only open a crack people look for the back door. I want the people who come in to be vetted, regulated and documented.

        What Bush said turns me off. It says that the ends justify the means and that laws only apply to other people (standard progressive themes). I would let people come in and plead guilty, suspend the sentence, and then wipe it clean if they complete a probationary period. If people don’t turn themselves in or don’t meet minimum qualifications of otherwise good citizenship, round them up and toss them out, they had their chance.

  11. Jeb is an establishment crap weasel who just wants his cronies to have access to an endless supply of cheap labor. And as someone pointed out above, if Jeb is all about the love these days, maybe he could show some love to the millions of victims of our criminal justice system. Jeb won’t be doing that since doing so won’t help his cronies.

    Maybe Reason should ask itself sometime “why does being pro open borders always seem to mean having to agree with shitheads like Jeb Bush?”. Funny how outside of Libertarians every politician who favors open borders is one brand of loathsome or another. And I don’t mean loathsome in normal terms, since all politicians are loathsome in some way. I mean loathsome even when compared to other politicians.

    1. Re: John,

      Jeb is an establishment crap weasel who just wants his cronies to have access to an endless supply of cheap labor.

      Would you rather have people employing expensive labor only, John?

      1. Maybe. There is nothing special about cheap labor. If labor is more expensive, that just means you invest more in capital which increases productivity.

        There is nothing to say cheap labor is necessary for prosperity or that it even furthers that cause. There are plenty of places like Japan for example who have done quite well without access to cheap labor.

        Moreover, an labor market that is constantly loose has other effects that are not so great. It may be great for employers to have an endless supply of labor but it isn’t so good for everyone else. For non-employers such a system means constant employment insecurity and very little leverage with your employer. A society full of economically insecure workers doesn’t sound very good to me. Progs who have spent the last 120 years trying to create a revolutionary proletariat in this country, love the idea.

        1. “There is nothing special about cheap GOODS AND SERVICES. If GOODS AND SERVICES are more expensive, that just means you invest more in capital which increases productivity.”

          “There is nothing to say cheap labor is necessary for prosperity or that it even furthers that cause. There are plenty of places like Japan for example who have done quite well without access to cheap labor.”

          You do know Japan started growing much like China as a source of cheap manufacturing, right? As did Taiwan and HK, for that matter.

          1. Sure Japan started cheap, but as it got richer it stopped making cheap stuff and made products that paid higher wages.

            Why is Japan worse off because they make cars and expensive stuff and China or India better off because they have cheap labor and make cheap stuff? They are not. It is just what kind of society and economy do you want. Do you want to want to be India and have a ton of poor people tolling away for low wages or do you want to be Japan and have a smaller more restricted labor force making really expensive stuff. There is a place in the world for both, but one is not necessarily any better than the other.

            1. Fucking comparative advantage, how does it work? Back to Ricardo for you, John.

              1. I know exactly how it works. And it makes my point. There is nothing that says that a given country has to seek a comparative advantage in wage rates and supply of labor to be successful. Low wages is one of many comparative advantages you can have. The pro immigration people act like it is the only one.

                Don’t lecture me on comparative advantage. I understand it full well and it makes exactly the point I am making. That you don’t understand that means that you don’t understand comparative advantage as much as you think you do.

                1. I know exactly how it works. And it makes my point.

                  Not in the context of the example you provided. You don’t get to choose what your comparative advantage is on a national scale, it’s usually a function of your state of development and access to natural resources and intellectual talent. Japan didn’t wake up one day and go “Okay, we’re not going to compete on labor prices anymore” – they gradually lost that advantage as a function of their economic development. It happens organically. It’s happening in China as well, despite the best efforts of the government to prevent it.

                  Importantly, on an international scale, America isn’t competitive on labor even at illegal immigrant scab wages, nor is there any concerted effort to suppress wages for the purpose of obtaining a comparative advantage in inexpensive labor on a national scale.

            2. Re: John,

              Sure Japan started cheap, but as it got richer it stopped making cheap stuff[…]

              That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive immigrants.

              Why is Japan worse off because they make cars and expensive stuff[…]?

              They will never be worse off as long as the Japanese continues to enjoy trade with those countries. However, there are things better suited to local production than overseas production which still require less-skilled labor.

              Do you want to want to be India and have a ton of poor people tolling away for low wages[…]?

              China and India are not poor today because of an influx of immigrants. They’re poor because their populations are not productive enough to create surpluses (i.e. savings, or capital) that can enable the population to specialize and produce higher-value goods. Don’t throw red herrings around.

              1. That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive immigrants.

                They received very few and never enough to keep wages down such that they kept their comparative advantage. The point is that Japan started out with that advantage, got richer and moved on to doing other things. Neither Japan nor the US nor anyone else has to use wage rates as its comparative advantage. So the people who claim to be successful the US must have a large supply of cheap labor are just wrong.

                They will never be worse off as long as the Japanese continues to enjoy trade with those countries. However, there are things better suited to local production than overseas production which still require less-skilled labor.

                Sure. And you could imagine a case where a country is held back because it has a real shortage of unskilled labor. Japan may in fact be such a country. The US in contrast is most certainly not. Open borders, whatever its merits, serves to increase the supply of unskilled and low skilled labor.

                1. Neither Japan nor the US nor anyone else has to use wage rates as its comparative advantage.

                  This, again, reflects your profound misunderstanding of how comparative advantage arises. You don’t have a static comparative advantage willed from on high. It also ignores that America doesn’t enjoy a comparative advantage on labor costs, even in unskilled labor. And it would take a monumental volume of immigration to make it so. Theoretically it’s possible, but your examples are poor ones.

                  1. And it would take a monumental volume of immigration to make it so. Theoretically it’s possible, but your examples are poor ones.

                    I would say open borders might do that. Beyond that, you are the one that doesn’t understand comparative advanage. You may not be able to choose your comparative advantage, but a government can certainly choose what is not its advantage. Countries like Japan and those in Western Europe has restricted immigration and specifically chosen not to try and create a comparative advanage in wages. Japan could have let immigrants in and kept their wages low and still be making the types of things they did in the 1950s. They chose not to and let those industries move onto other places.

                    Was that the right thing to do? I don’t know. But it was a choice they could make and a choice the US could make. There is nothing to say the US couldn’t restrict immigration for the purpose of raising wages and forcing its economy to seek a comparative advantage in something other than labor.

                    The bottom line is, the principle of comparative advantage says nothing about the desirability of immigration one way or another. You don’t need open borders or really any immigration at all to have a successful economy.

                    1. You may not be able to choose your comparative advantage, but a government can certainly choose what is not its advantage. Countries like Japan and those in Western Europe has restricted immigration and specifically chosen not to try and create a comparative advanage in wages.

                      Still no. Comparative advantage is a function of the market and usually arises naturally. The government can restrict the supply of anything it can point a gun at, but it’s extremely difficult except perhaps in very isolated parts of the world to create or maintain a comparative advantage by fiat. You are still running into the fundamental problem of conflating choices freely made in a market (such as labor/capital considerations with open immigration) and choices imposed by a government (such as your theoretical 1950’s Japan rounding up Mongol hordes to shove into their factories at scab wages). If Japan had theoretically opened its borders in the 50’s, there’s little guarantee they would have attracted enough cheap laborers to maintain a comparative advantage in low-cost manufacturing, and no guarantee it would have lasted anyway since their economy developed in a way, due to both market forces, resources, and geography, that shifted away from that industry. If Japan wanted to maintain a cost advantage on labor it would have been a lot easier to just institute price controls or debase currency than to go kidnap slave labor, as you are suggesting.

                    2. PM

                      You seem to not understand that there is nothing inevitable about immigration. We can either choose to have it or not. And we can also choose the kind of immigration.

                      If we want to have more of a comparative advantage is labor costs than we have now, then letting in more workers is the way to go. If we don’t, then we don’t have to. Neither choice guarantees or precludes economic growth. It just governs what kind of growth and what kind of society you will get. The bottom line is restricting immigration doesn’t mean we can’t have a good economy. It just means we won’t have a good economy that includes a lot of cheap labor. That is it.

                    3. Neither choice guarantees or precludes economic growth. It just governs what kind of growth and what kind of society you will get.

                      You seem to not understand that there is nothing inevitable about the total state dictating what sort of economic growth and what kind of society we should have. Artificially restricting the labor supply to keep nominal prices high is no different than artificially restricting the sugar supply to keep nominal prices high (which the US government also does). I don’t think anyone disputes the ability of the government to disrupt the market by restricting the supply of anything it can point a gun at, they just question the wisdom of doing so. Whether we have a market filled with cheap laborers, or massive capital investments and full automation, or any combination thereof should ideally be a function of the market, not of government policy.

                    4. The bottom line is, the principle of comparative advantage says nothing about the desirability of immigration one way or another.

                      You’re correct here – the principle of free trade, also Ricardo’s invention, addresses immigration more clearly, and even then the fact remains that you can have a successful society with no immigration at all, at least theoretically. Even if all the world had open borders, it’s likely there would be a good many countries with no net immigration.

                      The principle of comparative advantage, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the government selecting an economic outcome and then regulating society to create it. The Soviet Union, for example, didn’t have a comparative advantage in automobile production because the government coerced automobile production out of society.

                    5. I would say open borders might do that.

                      Sure, they might. We have no way of knowing for sure. Considering the number of high-skill, high-wage immigrants that would likely be entering the country at the same time as the low-skill, low-wage workers, it would probably just end up leading to a more economically stratified country not that terribly different economically from the one we have right now (ethnically and culturally is another question).

                      There’s other economic arguments you could be making that I might be sympathetic to, I just think you’re on the wrong horse here.

              2. China and India are not poor today because of an influx of immigrants. They’re poor because their populations are not productive enough to create surpluses (i.e. savings, or capital) that can enable the population to specialize and produce higher-value goods. Don’t throw red herrings around.

                Sure. But why haven’t they gotten more productive? Two reasons. First, since they have such a huge supply of cheap labor they don’t have the incentive to become more productive. It makes no sense to invest in expensive capital when you have cheap enough labor to do it by hand. Second, they haven’t had the time to get rich enough that they run out of cheap labor and have an incentive to invest in capital. Eventually, you get big enough that you just can’t hire anymore coolies and it makes sense to invest in capital. That will be a while in India and China. If, however, you open your borders up, you never run out of cheap labor until the rest of the world does. Sure the calculation is a bit different here since the people have to come here and are not local. So you have the wages will never be as low here as the are in India. But the process of choosing cheap labor over capital and having lower productivity and a generally poorer population works the same just at a bit higher wage rate.

                1. But the process of choosing cheap labor over capital and having lower productivity and a generally poorer population works the same just at a bit higher wage rate.

                  In the case of completely open immigration (particularly in the absence of a welfare state) the market makes that decision. You talk as if there were some Board of Economy that could will the perfect balance for every business in a given country. Making a choice between labor and capital under conditions of false scarcity only serves to drive up nominal prices – real prices and purchasing power aren’t changed. It’s the same as restricting the supply for anything else.

                  1. In the case of completely open immigration (particularly in the absence of a welfare state) the market makes that decision.

                    Sure it does. But who the fuck cares? The market dictates every decision in the sense that the laws of behavior that drive market forces dictate how things turn out. That reality doesn’t say anything about what kind of country you want.

                    Making a choice between labor and capital under conditions of false scarcity only serves to drive up nominal prices – real prices and purchasing power aren’t changed. It’s the same as restricting the supply for anything else.

                    Okay. Big fucking deal. Who says that the labor market as inhabited by millions of unskilled immigrants is the only or even best available option? You are right. When you don’t have open borders, unemployment goes down, wages go higher and businesses have a different calculations to make. Whether that is a good or a bad things is the entire debate. I don’t see why it is necessarily a bad thing. It just depends on what you value.

                    1. That reality doesn’t say anything about what kind of country you want.

                      The market is chaos. It doesn’t care what kind of country I want, and the only way I could craft a country in my image would be to do so at the expense of the market.

                      Who says that the labor market as inhabited by millions of unskilled immigrants is the only or even best available option?

                      Nobody. It seems to be a pernicious badger of your own invention. If the free movement of labor happened to result in such a market, that would simply be a consequence of the free movement of labor. It would say nothing about anything, any more than the proliferation of the iPhone says anything about anything – it just is.

                      Whether that is a good or a bad things is the entire debate.

                      No, it’s not. It’s a debate you’ve crafted and are engaging in mostly with yourself. For the people who advocate the free movement of labor in a laissez faire market as a matter of principle rather than as a means to some utilitarian end, the outcome is neither good nor bad, it just is. The same way that the number of gas stations, or bananas, or airplanes just is. You simply can’t comprehend anybody not viewing the economy through the same utilitarian paradigm that you do where the market exists only to satisfy some policy goal. Even if you don’t agree with the deontological position you should at least be able to understand it.

                    2. PM,

                      You are just begging the question and telling me “this is the choice with more freedom so it must be good”. It is to you. But that doesn’t make it so to me or anyone else. And as we discuss above, it doesn’t necessarily mean we will be more wealthy. In fact, it may make us overall poorer on average.

                      You act like the choice of a restricted labor market and high wages is some kind of illegitimate choice. And if your fundamental value is “freedom over all else”, then yes it is. But there is nothing to say that has to be everyone’s value. More importantly, open borders being the more free choice does not in any way mean it is the necessary or even better choice economically.

                    3. You are just begging the question and telling me “this is the choice with more freedom so it must be good”.

                      Correct. That’s the moral premise of libertarianism. The NAP. You’re at a libertarian website, that shouldn’t be a controversial axiom to start from.

                      My views on immigration are actually quite a bit more nuanced by practical experience (as 99% of the commentariat will attest to since they frequently put me in lower esteem than you on the issue), but I do believe that, morally, the ideal way to structure a government would be open immigration with restrictions only for public health and knowable threats to public safety (I’m not an anarchist).

                      You act like the choice of a restricted labor market and high wages is some kind of illegitimate choice.

                      From a market perspective and from a NAP perspective, it is. The same as a restricted market for goods and high prices is an illegitimate choice.

                      But there is nothing to say that has to be everyone’s value.

                      No, of course not. Neo-mercantilists and protectionists abound. It doesn’t make their position legitimate, economically or from a libertarian philosophical perspective. You can’t seriously expect deontologicals to give any respect to those positions.

                      (cont’d)

                    4. More importantly, open borders being the more free choice does not in any way mean it is the necessary or even better choice economically.

                      It would be the sole exception where more economic freedom led to worse economic outcomes, but it’s theoretically possible. However, you’re arguing with people who are working from a moral premise, not a utilitarian one. Even if it did lead to worse outcomes, they would still take the position consistent with their moral belief. You don’t have a problem recognizing that when Tony is going full utilitarian relativist; I don’t understand why it bends your mind so on this particular issue.

        2. Re: John,

          Maybe. There is nothing special about cheap labor.

          Yes, there is.

          If labor is more expensive, that just means you invest more in capital which increases productivity.

          Yes, you do invest more – SOMEWHERE ELSE.

          There are plenty of places like Japan for example who have done quite well without access to cheap labor.

          Japan imports labor from the Philipines, Taiwan, South America and China. The Japanese were also taking South Koreans for a long time right after the end of the Korean War until the 1990s once Korea became an economic powerhouse in its own right.

          It may be great for employers to have an endless supply of labor but it isn’t so good for everyone else.

          Who is “everyone else” and why should I care? Unless this “everyone else” you allude are the shareholders of the company hiring the cheaper labor, then the argument is fallacious.

          1. Mexican,

            Cheap labor is a “comparative advantage” but it is not the only available comparative advantage. That is my whole point. Cheap labor is one way to get an advantage, but there are other ways. You guys throw these terms out but you often don’t think about them or understand them very well.

            Yes, you do invest more – SOMEWHERE ELSE.

            Maybe. But not always. If that were the case, countries like Japan and Sweden or Germany, who offer no comparative advantage in wages, would never attract foreign investment. And clearly they attract a lot and in fact a lot more than low wage countries. Again, you confuse the comparative advantage of low wages with it being the only available comparative advantage.

            Who is “everyone else” and why should I care?

            The everyone else is you and everyone who lives here. And we have this thing called a government that we pay taxes to and in return expect to look out for our interests. If opening the borders is something that the people who live, pay taxes and vote here, decide is not in their interest, then those people have every right to expect their government to act accordingly.

            It goes back to the entire idea of whose interests the government of the United States is supposed to look out for. I say the answer to that is the Americans who vote and pay taxes into it. You say, it is everyone in the world.

        3. Maybe. There is nothing special about cheap labor. If labor is more expensive, that just means you invest more in capital which increases productivity.

          Holy crap, the economic derp is strong with John.

    2. First off, being pro-amnesty does not equal pro-open borders. Secondly, how the fuck are pro-closed borders somehow superior? It’s hilarious how people who are the first to criticize some libertarians for being too pure by attacking Rand Paul for being too pragmatic are the ones attacking Reason for supporting Paul’s stance on this issue.

  12. And what is love? Love is the mornin’ and the evenin’ star. It shines on the cradle of the Babe. Hear ye, sinners. Love is the inspiration of poets and philosophers. Love is the voice of music. I’m talkin’ about divine love – not carnal love.

    Sounds wonderful to you realize Elmer Gantry was a charlatan.

    1. If it is all about “love”, I wonder if Jeb is okay with not allowing people with criminal records in. Don’t people who have paid their debt to society in Mexico deserve a chance too? Would Jeb say that it should be illegal to hire an American with a criminal record? I doubt it. So, if immigration is all about how we show love to foreigners rather than a cold calculation of what is in America’s interests, why should foreign people who have criminal records be denied access?

    2. Mainer,

      My car actually turned me white this weekend. I was out Sunday morning driving the back roads and I went to get on the interstate and went down an onramp and floored it. I didn’t realize that the ramp actually had a blind curve to it and got sharper as you got to the merge lane. It was too late to let off the accelerator when I realized the curve. So I just kept on the gas and turned it harder. The car gripped and went right through it. For me, it was terrifying. I couldn’t believe it did it. I don’t think I was even that close to losing grip.

      1. You try to reconcile the horror stories with the storied racing history.

        You should get Vic Elford’s book on high performance driving. (I assume as a Porsche guy, you know who Elford is.) In it he says the 911 is actually the Best handling design, making an analogy to a high wire artist and his balance beam. A very telling analogy in my opinion.

        1. I am going to take some lessons. I need to know how to actually drive that thing.

          There is a great story about Steve McQueen and Bruce Lee. They were very good friends. One day Lee told McQueen he wanted to buy a 911. McQueen told Lee that was a pretty fast car and he should go for a ride with him in his before he bought it. So McQueen takes Lee up to Mullholland drive in his 911. McQueen was a legitimate professional race driver. So he just halls ass down this curvy mountain road overlooking LA. So he is telling Lee about all the great things the car will do and finally says “it will also do a 180” and hits the breaks and flings the are around bringing it to a stop facing the other way in the other lane. McQueen looks over and Lee had crawled into the wheel well he was so terrified. Lee tells McQueen he is going to kill him. McQueen is also terrified now as pretty much the toughest man in the world just said he was going to kill him. So he floors it and Lee tells him to stop. McQueen says only if you agree not to hurt me. Lee agreed but said he would never ride in a car with McQueen again.

          Some mutual friend tells it in an interview I saw on Youtube. That story is too good to make up.

  13. “The records show the largest increases were in deportations involving illegal immigrants whose most serious offense was listed as a traffic violation, including driving under the influence.”

    If they are here illegally, chances are they have to drive. So I don’t necessarily fault them for that.

    But if they are here illegally, have no license, no insurance, and are drunk, then fuck them.

    1. including driving under the influence.”

      I am as anti MADD as anyone. Since when is DUI a “traffic offense”? Moreover, a conviction isn’t an automatic deportation. The government still has to convince an immigration judge to deport you. I seriously doubt many immigration judges are deporting otherwise law abiding green card holders for blowing a .08 at a road block.

      I don’t understand why Reason so often tries to make its points in such dumb ways. They are not helping their cause by defending the “but what about the poor immigrant drunk drivers who get deported” hill.

      1. I think they included that as disclosure, so as to not mislead people into thinking that all of those people got deported for speeding or running a stop sign.

  14. Nice sentiment. But how about we argue against crappy laws using logic instead of whether or not it warms the cockles of Jeb Bush’s heart.

    1. cockles..(snicker)

      1. Probably should have spelled it Kochles

    2. Jeb Bush gets off on Fox conservatives stroking his establishment dynasty cock with their greasy evangelical fingers. His glistening shaft eventually exploding sticky dictatorial semen into the yawning gape of Conservative admiration.

      1. That was not necessary.

        1. Are you offended more by the analogy or the reality?

            1. I’d offer a tissue but given the circumstances…

      2. I don’t think Jeb has a single vocal supporter who is not either in the media or connected to Washington or his family somehow.

  15. “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony.” Oh, so if it’s not a felony it’s not important? Everyone who breaks a law that is not a felony should just get a free pass? What kind of whack-job is this Bush?

    He’s a typical fascist (they who worship government as god) who makes up the rules (i.e. laws) as he goes along – just like 0bama.

    Indeed, the only difference between Bush and 0bama is skin tone. They are both idiots.

    1. If it’s not a felony, it’s less important. Or at least that’s the idea behind distinguishing felonies and misdemeanors.

    2. This may blow your mind, but there are many laws that people should not be punished for breaking.

  16. In fact, the Republicans are so full of it on this issue that they have come to embrace a nightmare mandatory program, E-Verify[…] This comes after complaining (rightly!) about Obamacare’s individual mandate and that law’s reach into people’s privacy.

    Do you know what other State issued work permits?

  17. At the same time, the Republicans have let a potent political issue to slip through their fingers.

    “The more you tighten your grip, the more issues will slip through your fingers!”

    President Barack Obama is the worst president in terms of deporting immigrants, but he and the Democrats are getting a free ride on the issue thanks to the GOP’s atavistic anti-Hispanic rhetoric

    Thus serving as the perfect living image to accompany the saying “Snatched Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory.”

  18. At the same time, the Republicans have let a potent political issue to slip through their fingers.

    I stand behind no one in my contention that Republicans are political incompetents. It is completely, horseshit, however, to say that Republicans have missed out on this great political issue by not being open borders. A large part of the Republican base are anti-open borders. Selling those people out would cost the Republicans a hell of a lot more votes than they would gain. Maybe that means the Republicans are doomed. Maybe so and it just sucks to be a Republican. But no way in hell is going open borders anything but political suicide for Republicans.

    Where Republicans have been incompetent is properly exploiting their closed borders stance. Open borders are terrible for the black community and a immigrants who are already here. Immigrants who played by the rules and got a green card are often not too keen on letting illegals have one. A lot of Greens are also anti-immigration. Republicans being morons never make this point or argue forcefully to expose the cracks in the Democratic coalition over immigration.

    1. Can we stop beating the open borders straw man? Now everyone who thinks our immigration system is screwed up and in need of major overhaul is open borders. Not everyone who thinks it should be easier for people to come here and work is against a security check.

      1. Reason’s editorial stance on the issue is unambiguously open borders. Also, it’s difficult to exercise any sort of security or communicable disease caveats on that policy with illegal immigrants for the rather obvious reason that they did not come through official channels where that kind of thing gets done.

      2. Two things, why do you believe in a security check? If immigration is a moral issue, why should someone convicted of a crime in Mexico not be allowed to come here? IF they are wanted sure. But I want to hire a welder from Mexico, who are you to tell me I can’t just because he did something when he was young?

        Second, if you believe in security checks, then how do you plan to do amnesty? There are 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. No way in hell could you run a real background check on all of them in any reasonable amount of time. Amnesty will be just that, amnesty for everyone who is living here and doesn’t have an outstanding warrant. You could probably weed out people with convictions here but no way could you figure out who has convictions back home. How do you tell whether 11 million people have criminal records in Latin America? You can’t and couldn’t. Those countries are not hooked into our system and many don’t have electronic records systems at all.

        1. why do you believe in a security check?

          Because security and defense are a legitimate role of government.

          who are you to tell me I can’t just because he did something when he was young?

          It is perfectly legitimate for government to say that people who pose a threat to the safety and security of people within its jurisdiction can’t come into the country. That is sort of the point of my first post. What did your welder do? If he killed someone, I’d say it is pretty reasonable for the government to judge them to be a security threat. If they shoplifted, not so much. For you to imply that a security check means turning away anyone with any type of criminal record is disingenuous. But then, that seems to be the case with most of your arguments in this thread.

          If there is any evidence that a significant fraction of the 11 million already here are convicted murders or other types of criminals that we may want to close the borders to, then perhaps it is worth the resources to track them down. I highly suspect that isn’t the case and that you are inventing a problem, but I’m open to evidence to the contrary.

          1. I agree with you, but I don’t look at immigration as a moral issue. If immigration is a moral issue and the US government is immoral to prevent Mexicans who want to come here for doing so, then how is it any better to treat former Mexican criminals differently than American criminals? Isn’t an American who robbed a liquor store and served his time just as much of a threat to safety as the Mexican who did the same? Why does the American get a second chance to work here and the Mexican doesn’t? If you say “because he is an American and you are not”, then I don’t see how immigration is any kind of moral issue. Either Americans have a special claim on living and working here that Mexicans and other foreigners or they do not. If they do, then the government has every right to tell Mexicans, you can’t come here. If they don’t, then I don’t see how the government can tell a Mexican and an American with similar backgrounds that the American can work here but the Mexican can’t.

            1. Which is why I’d set a fairly high bar for denying entry. But the moral argument for a free flow of people and ideas don’t negate the government’s legitimate responsibility to defend the people against threats. If the immigration debate were largely about who is and isn’t a security risk, then maybe I’d know of reasonable arguments for a more restrictive system. For example, I can see a possible argument for treating someone who went through the U.S. legal system, which the government has control and oversight of, differently than someone who went through the system of another country.

              As it stands, I hear almost no one talking about these types of issues. Instead it focuses on the government meddling in the free exchange of service even when there is no security threat, and in protecting against imagined threats to some idealized notion of American culture.

              1. I don’t think we disagree. The bottom line is that we both recognize that the government has the right to decide who can and cannot come here. We just disagree on who that should be. My only point is that if the government can deny anyone short of a wanted criminal or a known threat, immigration is no longer a moral issue since I don’t see how the government can tell a Mexican with a criminal record they can’t work here and an American they can, if letting the Mexican in is some kind of a moral duty.

          2. If there is any evidence that a significant fraction of the 11 million already here are convicted murders or other types of criminals that we may want to close the borders to

            For reasons that should be plainly obvious, it’s difficult to ascertain the demographic data of illegal immigrants.

      3. What!? You mean our only choices aren’t open borders or East Germany? Perish the thought!

        1. If you think the Feds are capable of actually screening 11 million illegals rather than just handing out green cards to all of them, you have a lot more faith in government than you usually have.

    2. What the “open borders republicans” want is the gains they got, in the hispanic vote, after the last amnesty.
      Look up the figures.
      SPOILER ALERT: They got fewer hispanic votes.

  19. God forbid we call it what it really is: an act of self-interest. Because that would make it all icky and capitalisty, and we wouldn’t want our views on justice and the law tainted by that shit.

  20. Personally I think we should have open borders – that the US as a whole can withstand the flow of immigrants. I think the only issue I have is that once over the border, the immigrants historically have stayed in the states they first entered. Over a generation of time that can have excessive influence on those states.

    If those populations were to expand equally across all 50 states, I think most people wouldn’t even think twice about immigration. Overall it seems unfair that the Federal government should force the love (it does seem somewhat analogous to forced prostitution) in these few states. If the border were truly open then shouldn’t the US have the option to welcome and then relocate newly entering immigrants to states of the government’s choosing?

    If they did that then it seems to me that the border states would drop their opposition.

    1. Where do you get your non-data?

      The fastest growth of immigrants in the last 2 decades has been in non-border states.

      Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee… all have seen immigrant populations double in the last decade. In the big ‘border’ states (Florida and NY are included in that quasi-definition), growth has been slowing since 2001.

    2. Constitutional freedom to travel. We’ll never control where immigrants go.

  21. So which one of GW’s daughters will be president after Jeb?

  22. i consider this post an unethical exercise in ‘Murkin-baiting

  23. Immigration-especially illegal immigration-for purposes of self-betterment is heroic. Those peoples sneaking over the border for work including drug smuggling are heroes. Bless them; bless Randall.

  24. Sorry but this is nothing but – Election Year BUSH BS. Remember when George Bush the 1st was running for office. He Promised — “READ MY LIPS – NO NEW TAXES” And what was the first thing he did when he got into office ????? He RAISED Taxes. If people don’t realize by now that the Bush Clan are a bunch of lying A-Holes and will say anything to get into office then something is wrong. If he gets elected, buses will be lined up across the country on the way back to Mexico.

    1. And it will be regular Americans that don’t want another Bush.

  25. What garbage. Libertarians are hopeless. Immigration is what it is, and so is illegal immigration. And the consequences of the latter have nothing to do with “love,” nor do the thousands of DUI deaths at the hands of drunken illegals. Enforce the laws. A sane immigration system need have nothing to do with amnesty, just sane laws scrupulously enforced.

  26. Ironic — the article quoting the rule of law in The Game of Thrones along with the notion that a sovereign nation seeking to control its borders is immoral. Which is it?

    We heard all of this in 1986. What happened to the infamous “last amnesty”? Lots of fraud and a doubling of illegal immigration an NO workplace verification. And a degradation if our way of life in Southern California, schools especially.

    So what’s to change this time ?? Definition of insanity, anyone? There are literally hundreds of millions of uneducated and unskilled poor who would immigrate here in a flash. Once we reaffirm our utter contempt for the rule of law in immigration, they will be encouraged to come here to “provide for their families.” That’s crazy. It’s a political ploy for both parties.

    How will any of this “reform” stop illegal immigration?

  27. Mostly, I agree with Reason. This time, I do not.

    Any Reason employee who agrees with this viewpoint should immediately surrender their job to a criminal alien and swear never to take another job so long as there is an unemployed American. The pressure and pain aliens (criminal and otherwise) put on our economy should be felt FIRST and MOST by those who advocate throwing open the doors so the thieves can sweep through America, stealing whatever they please.

    The solution to the problem of criminal invasion is simple: Shoot invaders as they cross the border. Video and broadcast the kills. Give the criminal aliens planning to come here something to think about.

    As for the ones already here, give them 6 months to get out. Provide free bus service to the border. Help them fill out the paperwork to immigrate legally (at the END of the line). After six months, make it a mandatory 2 years in prison at hard labor for any criminal alien caught in America, with 100% forfeiture of all property. Put a bounty on them of $1000. Fine any employer who employs a criminal alien $1000 per day. Anyone who rents property to a criminal alien – same fine. Make it mandatory that any medical facility who treats a criminal alien without attempting to determine their status and turning them in pays a $1 million fine per incident. Any school that admits a criminal alien would be subject to a $100,000 fine and the firing of ALL administrative staff.

    Within 7 months, the problem is solved.

  28. An act of love? Oh please, spare me. I have numerous friends who are trying to immigrate to the US. They’re doing it the legal way, and they have to wait. They love their families just as much as any illegal and want to provide a better life for them. The only difference is that they have a sense of law, propriety, dignity and moral order that tells them to do it the legal way.

    I do not advocate rounding people up and deporting them. I believe there are much subtler pressures available to encourage people to self-deport, and I have seen those pressures in action personally.

    That being said, I work for a major university. I am sick to death of students who are “illegal” or whose parents are “illegal” constantly telling me that I OWE them… a free education, gourmet meals (a la UConn BB player Napier who’s complaining because he doesn’t get free gourmet meals with this free tuition), free housing while they’re in school, a great career and a six-figure income when they graduate, etc.

    You want to work hard to get ahead be my guest, otherwise the door is open and it swings both ways.

  29. If they’d cut off the welfare and make sure that non-citizens don’t vote, then I have no problem with free travel, but it’d be polite to come to the door and sign the guestbook. My other thoughts about visitors from foreign lands is that I don’t want to have to move to a high-rent neighborhood just to find stores with English-speaking help, but I don’t know what to do about that other than find stores that I like.

    On, and it really galls me that they’re using American taxpayer dollars to put Mexican shows on the American airwaves via PBS.

  30. What is missing is some obvious distinctions among those here illegally. Pretending they all represent loving family members seeking a better life addresses only a part of the issue. Distinctions must be made between desirable and undesirable intruders. Failing that, no amnesty program, regardless of how popular, should be entertained.

  31. This is left wing gibberish. Easily the worst piece of nonsense I have ever read in “Reason”. So millions from Mexico and Central America intentionally broke the law, walked across the border and now “Reason” wants to reward them with citizenship and free government handouts. That’s crazy! Do you folks work for the Democrat Party? The Democrat Party thinks this is fantastic, the best idea ever. Just imagine, 12 million new voters for their side. And what about the rest of the world? I live in the Philippines. Tens of millions here desperately want to emigrate to the U.S. but can’t because they have to follow the law. Why is what you demand fair? And the pathetic claim that it OK to break the law if it is an “act of love” is disgusting. I worked as an intern for a summer at “Reason” 30+ year s ago. Now I’m almost ashamed of it.

  32. So we should just open the borders? How many can we accept? Is the ability to sustain in the U.S. infinite?
    Do we have the doctors,scientists or other brainiacs storming the borders?
    Is there some reason that the United States should not work to help these other countries make a better place for their own?
    Or is that imperialism and hegemony?
    Are the proponents of an open immigration policy going to “adopt” these “acts of love” and take them into their homes? Keep them, financially speaking, like children, until they can make it on their own?
    No matter, they make for good votes.

  33. This is the kind of libertarian stuff that turns a lot of people off.
    There have to be some laws and for the libertarians to act like there shouldn’t is crazy.
    The bottom line is that the illegals – note the term: illegal – broke the laws to get here. What other laws should we just abandon because “everyone should be able to do whatever they want”?
    I’ll bet that, if every one of the “open borders” crowd came home to find a “poor” family squatting in their home, taking everything they worked for, they would scream bloody murder but, when it is imposing on someone else, “we should have some compassion”. Bullcrap!

  34. This is the kind of libertarian stuff that turns a lot of people off.
    There have to be some laws and for the libertarians to act like there shouldn’t is crazy.
    The bottom line is that the illegals – note the term: illegal – broke the laws to get here. What other laws should we just abandon because “everyone should be able to do whatever they want”?
    I’ll bet that, if every one of the “open borders” crowd came home to find a “poor” family squatting in their home, taking everything they worked for, they would scream bloody murder but, when it is imposing on someone else, “we should have some compassion”. Bullcrap!

  35. Amusing?Libertarians believe that the rule of law applauded in their Game of Thrones article, as justice applied equally to kings and commoners, is to be criticized when the equality fundamental to the rule of law, interferes with the Libertarian effort to erase the difference between legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants. So much for Libertarian “principles.”

  36. We love are family and country.
    Which is precisely we all insist our laws be followed.
    Or is that too Extreme?

  37. An over-abundance of low-end-wage seeking workers places a huge drag on an entire economy due to the need for taxpayers to subsidize their basic subsistence. This is not just a poor person vs. taxpayer problem – any over-abundance of labor causes the standard of living of the entire laboring middle class to deteriorate as well.

    Liberty without rules is anarchy. Is that where Reason wants us to go? Sure sounds that way…might as well start quoting Emma Goldman.

    Regarding our 11 million illegals:

    “Every society has the criminals it deserves.”
    ? Emma Goldman

    Also:
    “Give us what belongs to us in peace, and if you don’t give it to us in peace, we will take it by force.”
    ? Emma Goldman

  38. Nick, I usually respect what you have to say. See ya on Fox betimes. Last was The Independents.

    OK, if it’s an act of love to break into the USA, it would NECESSESARILY follow that if an illegal family broke into your house, that would also be the same act of love.

    Boss, you just cannot have it both ways. Either both acts are illegal or they are not.

    I left the R half of the Big Govt Party because of crap like you wrote. Don’t drive me from the Libertarian Party for the same reason.

    I emphasize with these people. I was born in Tucson AZ in ’48 & have been around Mexican folks all my life. Had Mexican ladies as babysitters & later when my Mom moved us further North, in Jr & High School as I grew up I had 2 or 3 Mexican Moms who ‘adopted’ me so to speak as I was good friends with their sons. I had a Mexican gal as my lover just outa HS. She was a great person.

    All that though doesn’t make it right for non citizens to jump the border & thus break our law. Emotionalizing the situation is very disingenuous & manipulative. Not to mention that allowing illegals a pass is a slap in the face to those waiting to enter legally.

    What you are supporting is the collapse of the USA. Illegal immigration is just one front for that assault. You have to have read Cloward And Piven Strategy & Rules For Radicals…

    How about we simplify the whole mess by adopting Mexico’s laws on illegal immigration. Then we’d have parity.

    Whatcha think?

    SamFox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.