Friday Funnies: Immigration RINOs


NEXT: Brickbat: This Just Smells Bad

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mr. Gillespie, tear down this cartoon.

    1. -1 Wall of Voodoo

      1. +1 Mexican Radio

        1. +1.5 Celtic Frost

          1. +1 Reed Saint Mark

          2. What ever happened to Celtic Frost?
            Is it true that they got lost?
            Into the pandemonium, never to be seen again.

  2. Irony. It’s what Payne does to his laundry

    1. Is it laundry while you’re still wearing it?

  3. So tea partiers more opposed to immigration reform than the rank-and-file GOP? Cite?

    1. Please define “reform”.

      1. Well, it’s sort of like what we did to the Japanese during WWII, but with a different nationality. After we herd them into camps and bomb the shit out of their home country, we rebuild it under a military governer.

        1. I approve. Let’s do it!

          Now, “to whom” is the question….

          *taps chin and ponders*

          1. Massachusetts?

            1. Can we do Rhode Island while we’re at it?

              1. New Englanders are sufficiently undifferentiated that we could probably just go ahead and do the entire region. It’s the only way to be sure…

                1. That’s silly. The cities in New England are full of the descendants of Irish, Italian, Greek, Polish, and most recently, Portuguese immigrants. Predominantly Catholic and liberal.

                  The rural areas are still generally populated by the descendants of much earlier English and Dutch immigrants. Predominately Protestant, conservative, mind-your-own business libertarian leaning types. The actual Yankees.

                  1. Thank you for differentiating that, it drives me insane to be grouped into Albany NYC and Buffalo, when the rest of the land mass that is NY wants to burn these cities to the ground for the shit they impose upon the rest of us.

    2. Cantor is a modern day Reagan dontcha know.

  4. And?

    Now that we’ve seen the effects of 1986, we can make a better assessment of the situation. Amnesty encourages illegal migration, and introduces a lot of voters who vote bigger government. We can’t afford that, our government is too big already.

    1. Correct. We’ve learned the lesson of the 86 Amnesty – more illegals.

      Either open the borders and give up on having any kind of immigration rules or get back to enforcing the existing laws, including parts of the 86 law that are not being enforced.

      1. how does opening the borders not prevent even more of the same?

        1. I’m fine with open borders, just as soon as the welfare state is completely dismantled.

          OTOH, the US cannot support the entire population that would want to come here.

          If we have a need for X number of unskilled laborers that for some reason cannot be met with the current citizen workforce, then allow work visas for X unskilled laborers. If we have a need for X number of cardiac surgeons or plumbers or… then import those too.

          1. I’m fine with legalized drugs, just as soon as the welfare state is completely dismantled.

            I’m fine with gun rights, just as soon as the welfare state is completely dismantled.

        2. That is my point. If we implement amnesty, which is the argument I’m having, we might as well give citizenship to anybody who wants to come over here, then we won’t have a future population of illegals since there will be no such thing.

          With Amnesty on the current population it will just encourage more illegals to come thinking they will get a new amnesty. Proven with the current kid crusade coming now.

  5. Needs more Confederate flag.

    1. Needs more Confederate flag.

      That’s flag of people’s republic of Donetsk to you.

      1. Donetsk, Dontell, amirite?

        1. You’ll be appearing here all week, right?

          1. Tip the veal and try the waitress.

            1. The waitress was stringy and tasted of cigarettes and failed aspirations, basically what I’m saying is I’m not tipping the baby cow.

        2. Donetsk me, I’m not from around Ukraine.

            1. You seem to squint a lot, do you need new glasses?

                1. As a person of weak vision, I find that accusation offensive.

                  1. Great, now we have mutually microaggressed.


                    1. After regulation, the Grievance Match has resulted in a draw. To be settled by a shootout.


  6. This seems like a good place to leave this:…..again.html

    1. Here’s the thing about immigration reform, amnesty, or whatever it’s iteration that the open border people don’t get.

      The federal government isn’t competent or trustworthy. Period.

      The push-back coming from the right against immigration reform is characterized as racism or here on H&R “THEY TOOK R JOBZZZZZ!”

      Here’s a thought experiment. What if some of the deep suspicion on immigration reform is about a general distrust of the feds and a rational instinct that whatever the feds do it will be a monumental fuck-up?

      Let’s check the Fuck-Up Record:

      Wars? check
      Healthcare/Obamacare? check
      VA? check
      Politicization of regulatory agencies? check
      Public Education (k-12 and higher ed)? check
      Financial industry regulation? check

      Everything the feds touch turns to shit.

      So passing immigration reform legislation will be successful?

      According to FOX and Drudge, Obama’s executive order giving some minors legal status has created a deluge of children crossing the border recently. Now, this many very well be hysterical bullshit, or it might be true, but it does look like the beginning of another fuck-up, doesn’t it?

      Many Americans are deeply suspicious, rationally in my opinion, that the feds will fuck-up immigration reform because that’s what the feds do.

      1. It’s sometimes lost on libertarians that ‘immigration reform’ consists of more than a 1-page bill granting immediate legal status to every past, current or future illegal immigrant and removing all relevant regulation from the books. When discussing whatever the immigration reform bill du jour is we inevitably end up discussing the relative merits of a theoretical open-borders society that has never existed at any point in the history of this or any other country since antiquity, and has no immediate relation to the bill in question. The logic goes that if you aren’t in favor of literally not having any such thing as a “border” except for jurisdictional disputes you are an amoral racist cunt, and from there it’s easy to extrapolate that by way of granting legal status to people who currently do not have legal status, any immigration reform bill will move us at least incrementally closer to that goal, and so opposing the bill in question is probably motivated by the same amoral racist cuntiness.

        1. “theoretical open-borders society that has never existed at any point in the history of this or any other country”

          We were extremely close for a whole century. Once again, broad restriction on immigrations are the new development, historically

          Note how the concept of “illegal immigration” doesn’t even exist before 1882.

          1. the massive welfare state didn’t exist before 1882, either. People who immigrated did curious things like finding work, learning the language, assimilating to new surroundings, and all without the benefit of a Congress that treated them like mascots.

            1. Yes. But that cuts both ways.

              Immigration restrictions, by cutting down on the amount of people we saw as outgroups in the country, helped popularize the idea of a welfare state. The timing for both suggests which way the causation runs.

              Also the whole assimilation thing is extremely misleading, because we have the benefit of hindsight. It always takes a really long time:

              – The Germans, the first mass migrants after the English, weren’t fully assimilated until World War I. IIRC, Ben Franklin was really worried they’d never assimilate.
              – The Italians maintained a separate culture into the 50’s.
              – There’s still lot of insularism with Asian immigrants, as can be seen walking into any Chinatown in a big city.

              1. As a descendent of German immigrants, going back before the Revolution and through the 1880s, I take issue with this. While there may always be a pocket of some ethnic group still living the “old country culture,” the Germans were almost fully assimilated by 1880 (Franklin even wondered if the official language of the U.S. shouldn’t be German.)

      2. That + what Bryan Caplan calls “status-quo bias”.

        It’s really hard to increase legal immigration again in this country, despite the fact that it was the norm for most of our history.

        I suspect the only way this gets fixed is with 1 small nation (population-wise) deliberately going for no welfare state and near-unlimited migration, in a bid for economic superpower.

      3. Obama’s executive order giving some minors legal status has created a deluge of children crossing the border recently.

        ***raises hand and shakes arm back and forth****

        I know this one – what are incentives?

      4. Positive immigration reform–meaning a series of new rules and regulations on who may or may not enter the nation–isn’t an ideological libertarian issue any more than NAFTA is. Real free trade means an absence of interference by the state; the same is true for immigration, which ideally would be settled by property owners rather than some bureaucrat or politician who has no business telling anyone whom they may invite onto their property.

        The problem, as you point out, comes when inveterate schemers in government start fiddling with the knobs this way or that. There are some knob-fiddling arrangements that are better than others–the soft fascism of post-progressive America is clearly better than communism–but the ideal would be to get rid of the central-planning knobs altogether and allow markets to do their work.

        Given that Democrats are marginally more incompetent than Republicans, Democratic immigration reform would almost certainly be worse than what we have right now, so it’s not difficult to oppose anything that Obama would want to sign into law. But allowing aliens to sign private employment contracts that would permit them to work without government persecution, benefits, or any hope of citizenship is clearly the economically wise choice.

        Like most things libertarians talk about, it won’t happen. Politicians are purely self-interested (understandably so, given the incentives), and voters don’t understand why a larger labor pool increases wealth.

        1. Remembering all the Mises drama from Liberalism, I should qualify something. By “the soft fascism of post-progressive America is clearly better than communism,” I’m not making excuses for fascism or statism or any other political philosophy that stymies human flourishing. I just mean that some less-than-ideal arrangements are better than others here in the real world.

          It’s a tragedy that children are murdered every year, but it’s better that 1,000 children are murdered rather than 10,000, and it’s better to live under an asshole like Obama than it is to live under an asshole like Stalin.

        2. More from Boudreaux, and a reminder that open-border libertarians and market economists are not identical to those who are pushing for more bureaucracy–perhaps better, perhaps worse–in the guise of “immigration reform”:

          If you’re like most free-market conservatives (and libertarians), you believe that government has no business dictating people’s diets and engaging in other nanny-state intrusions such as mandating the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets. And you likely do not become a supporter of such nanny-state intrusions when someone argues (as someone always does) that government “must” govern such personal behaviors because government has socialized so many health-care costs ? costs that will become excessively burdensome to taxpayers if government does not regulate and punitively tax the likes of smoking cigarettes, drinking Big Gulp sodas, and driving without being buckled in.

          If I’m correct in guessing that you reject the argument that government socialization of health-care provision justifies government’s restrictions on people’s diets and driving habits, why do you not also reject what is logically the identical argument used to justify restrictions on immigration?

  7. Brat: Government is a monopoly on violence. Progs: RABBLEEABBLERABBLERABBLE


      Warty is very responsible…see how he has crafted this recyclable line! Very sustainable!

    2. Wow. I guess the truth hurts.


      Wait, anybody doubts that?

      1. I think it’s really a case of the progs don’t want to admit it.

      2. It isn’t that they doubt it, its that you aren’t supposed to say it.

        It is incredible to me how cowardly and intellectually dishonest so many people are.

        1. So … my butt doesn’t look good in these pants?

          1. I didn’t mean “fat”, I meant “phat”.

          2. UH, it’s not the pants…

          3. exactly take them off immediately and shake dat ass

        2. This. I’ve been treated to many P.C. arguments that boil down to “How dare you notice that!”

      3. They’d profess to doubt that 2+2=4 if it got in the way of the narrative.

        1. +1 Doublethink

          “No, no Winston, you’re lying, you still believe two plus two is four.”

    4. Just another case of a teabagger who’s ideologically married to the crazy ideas of noted anarcho-capitalist Max Weber.

    5. The only thing wrong with that statement is that it omits the qualifier “legally sanctioned.” Legally sanctioned by its own declaration of course, but that’s another topic.

      1. I would also ad “initiation.”

    6. That was a good read. And somewhat depressing that it needed to spelled out in so much detail at all.

  8. Why is that Revolutionary-era British subject (apparently, he was a participant in the Boston Tea Party) wearing modern clothes? Did they have logo t-shirts in the 1770’s? I don’t THINK so.

    And cowboys – which, apparently, that man on the poster is – didn’t come till the 1800’s. At least not dressed like that.

    And “immigration reform” is a dog-whistle something something about slavery, so RACIST.

    Oh, and you spelled “rhino” wrong.

    What a mess. Payne needs to go brush up on his artwork, and take a whole series on courses in “making sense”.

    Awful, therefore – perfect. Happy fucking Friday, Reasonoids. I hope the Earth’s magma erupts all over the globe, destroying civilization everywhere.

    Have a nice day!

    1. Actually Vaqueros of similar attire did exist during tha time, and that looks more like a sailcloth smock with black paint on it than a t-shirt.

      1. tha time

        You don’t need to put up an urban facade on our account.

        1. I’m just a lousy typist. Funny thing is, I work in IT and knowing how to type was never a requirement for the job.

          1. Why the hell do you think the interpreter/compiler was such a revolutionary concept?

      2. When we went to Williamsburg, I had a tricorn hat custom made. It’s very nice but I rarely wear it. Last time was at a comicon and I recieved many compliments and puzzled looks. I really need to wear it more to justify the $60 I paid for it.

        Where was I going with this?
        Oh yes, this cartoon sucks donkey dicks (as always).

        1. Start a trend among hipsters. You could make big bucks.

  9. We all know that Ronald Reagan set tge outer limits of what modern conservatives can support.

    He signed unbalanced budgets, so stop your whining about the national debt!

    He got divorced and signed a no-fault bill as Governor, so quit your bitchin’ aboutdivorce!


    1. Don’t forget gun control and assault weapon bans!

        1. And he liberalized abortion in CA as well. Stop worshipping him teabaggers!

  10. Who put the Venetian blinds over the Sun?!!!

    1. I thought those were shutters over a stage light.

      1. Ah, yes – I think you are right – a subtle Paynesque nod to Reagan’s Hollywood days. Very good.

    2. It’s a soletta. Alternate-universe Reagan foresaw all the crazy that would come out.of warming cultists and had NASA build.and.launch one to modulate insolation to settle down the climate.

      And to starve the.dirty Commies destroying their by blocking the.Sun.

  11. The fact that we are again discussing exactly the same reform measures contained in the IRCA of ’86 sort of speaks to the efficacy of such “reform” measures, doesn’t it? Regardless of whether you wanted an impenetrable border or a return to the immigration protocols of 1897, the Reagan reform effort couldn’t have possibly left you happy. Probably not a great example to point to.

  12. It’s actually not a bad drawing of Reagan.

    But he’s supposed to be herding *cows*, not rinos [sic].

    1. It’s not a bad Reagan. I would have known who it was even without the label.

  13. Is the guy’s pants on fire?

  14. Ted Kennedy “We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” That was the thinking in 1986.

    But by 2007, the number of people in the country illegally had jumped to more than 12 million.

    He also said “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” he said during the Senate debate.” but that was for his 1965 immigration bill. Ooops.

    1. Re. The 1965 bill (from wikipedia):

      “it is worth noting that this act introduced immigration quotas to Latin America, whereas there were previously no immigration quotas from the Western Hemisphere”

      As in the 1965 bill is when we started blocking Mexicans from coming here.

  15. Another Ted, Roosevelt, had a good idea here: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

    But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

    Ask all these illegal clamoring for “a path to citizenship”: If we gave you citizenship today, which team will you be rooting for in the World Cup?

    1. Ask all these illegal clamoring for “a path to citizenship”: If we gave you citizenship today, which team will you be rooting for in the World Cup?

      Any answer voids your citizenship, right?

      1. Exactly!

        No, seriously, I expect Americans to root for Team USA in pretty much everything, be it that communist “sport”, concrete canoe racing, whatever.

        1. If you’re pulling for Bolivia (say) over Team USA, then you’re probably a Bolivian even if you have American citizenship. It’s ok by me if you pull for Bolivia against everyone else, but if you pull for Bolivia over USA in that game than you’ve not truly embraced America. You probably also have a Bolivian passport that you use everywhere except at US Customs and tell everyone you’re Bolivian.

  16. Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter. If the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

    It behooves us all to distinguish between Hispanic immigrants and illegal border-jumpers. Anyone, no matter what race or original nationality, who comes to this country legally; who strives for citizenship; who embraces our language & culture while respecting their own traditions; who wants to help keep this country great–I welcome him with open arms and call him a fellow American.

    Those who sneak into this country illegally; who break immigration, employment, tax, zoning and even basic traffic laws on a daily basis; who reject our culture and retreat into barrios; who demand taxpayer-funded social services not even available to citizens in good standing–I have little sympathy for them and their “plight”.

  17. As a libertarian, I am for more open borders and freer trade. However, unchecked immigration is not compatible with a welfare state (which as a libertarian, I also oppose). Since we have a welfare state, at this point I concluded that I have to oppose unchecked (illegal) immigration.

    I would most certainly be in favor of a rational legal route for workers, even including unskilled workers, to come here and work. My own feeling is to put into place a one-time 5-year work-permitted visa that allows a non-citizen to come here and work here for that period of time (with certain limitations; e.g., no convicted criminals). During that time, however, they would not be eligible for welfare benefits of any kind nor would any children of visa-holders become citizens (even if born here during the visa-holder’s time here).

    Any felony and certain classes of misdemeanors would invalidate the visa, and overstaying the visa would be a felony.

    The visa cannot be renewed, nor can it be re-issued once granted. A single 5-year term is it. During the visa period, though, they would be free to apply for citizenship. But unless they attained citizenship, when their visa expires, they must return to their country-of-origin (any pending applications would still be considered, but would clearly not be granted if the applicant commits the felony of overstaying their visa).

    1. The welfare state will destroy your sustenance regardless of how many immigrants come in. That’s a foregone conclusion.

      The welfare state is incompatible with human freedom in general.

  18. Man never seen so many “libertarians” so stoked on using the State to interfere in people’s voluntary economic exchanges.

    1. Granting of citizenship is not exactly a voluntary economic exchange. Currently, citizenship grants “rights” to involuntarily-extracted-from-others welfare benefits, public education, etc.

      Absent that, I’d be a lot less interested.

  19. There is no right to free migration. None. As is all too often pointed out, it is not a right if it requires someone else’s stuff.

    Ants understand this. Ants. They have borders. As do chimps, orangutanns, and gorillas. And wolves, and cats, and cows and horses and most of the animal kingdom.

    And they defend those borders up to and including killing threats that cross them and try to take their territory.

    And yet there are folks here who claim that denial of this very basic fact of animal nature be denied as a precept of libertarianism.

    1. Immigrants are trying to take our territory?

      With your logic you could argue against any basic right given the current nature of the welfare state, including the right to own a gun.

      1. How so?

        I am not arguing against a ‘right’. I am pointing out that something that is called a ‘right’ isn’t one. And never has been.

        I am explaining a basic fact–that not only are borders real–they are hard-wired into us. That all through the animal kingdom animals migrating into the territory of other animals of the same type(or that occupy the same niche) are not seen as an asset–but as a threat.

        No one has the right to own a gun.

        We have the right to keep and bear arms. There is a difference. One is a specific ‘right’ to a specific technology. The other is a generalized right that reflects the natural right of self defense–a right that is inherent in any creature.

  20. Talking about “immigration reform” is something U.S. politicians do periodically. They have a rotating wheel of topics that they spin around with a canned position on this issue and that. Anything from abortion to gun control and so on. However, the words “immigration reform” is an absolute joke.

    The border between The United States and Mexico has NEVER been secure. Up to a point, that was not really important, since Mexicans would come to the U.S., work and make money, and return to Mexico. It was a seasonal thing. However, that changed radically with the rise of the drug war, and all of the violence connected with it. This also includes the sex traffic business, and illegal arms and so on.

    On that note, I have seen figures of 20 to 30 million Latino illegals north of the border. Many have been here for years, and their children have been born in the U.S. A real dilemma for sure. That’s the question called “immigration reform” or how to make these people citizens, or the call by some to deport them.

    A secure border is an entirely different matter. A secure border would be a militarized or sealed border in every sense of the word. For many Americans that is repugnant. However, with the increased violence and flow of drugs etc. across the border, it remains as the only viable solution, as distasteful as it may be, and especially for libertarians.

    1. If you want to end drug war violence, end the drug war. There’s a solution.

      There are no one-way fences. If Americans really want to pay to wall themselves in, that’s their prerogative, but one day the border guards’ guns and binoculars will start facing inward.

  21. Your logic is interesting. To end the drug traffic and related violence on the border is certainly a desirable goal.

    However, and until then, what is wrong with a truly secure sealed and militarized border? That will certainly not stop everything but it will secure the border by a very large percentage.

    How do you figure that “one day the border guards’ guns and binoculars will start facing inward”? What is your premise here.

    How about a sealed border, but with the legal border entries processing people who want to come over here from Mexico on a completely legal basis? That way they don’t have to sneak over. The sealed border would be to deter criminal activity as it now exists along the border, which is huge. That includes criminal cartels operating north of the border.

  22. This cartoon is disingenous propaganda.

    I was pretty young in ’84, but I don’t remember Reagan running for re-election based on his “immigration reform” plan.

    And the Dems promised they’d enforce the laws in the “reform” bill in ’86–surprise, they lied.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.