Immigration

If Jeff Sessions' Anti-Immigration and Free Trade Stances Are the Future of the GOP, It Has No Future.

|

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions said the United States needs to curb legal immigration along with illegal immigration, and fast. We need a timeout, don't you know, and the only folks who favor letting more foreigners in are monocle-wearing, cigar-smoking elitists:

High immigration rates help the financial elite (and the political elite who receive their contributions) by keeping wages down and profits up. For them, what's not to like? That is why they have tried to enforce silence in the face of public desire for immigration reductions. They have sought to intimidate good and decent Americans into avoiding honest discussion of how uncontrolled immigration impacts their lives.

Read the whole thing here.

Yeah, the intimidation on anti-immigration beliefs is so strong that only one of the potential Republican presidential candidates, Jeb Bush, is openly in favor of current (much less expanded) levels of immigration. And note that when Sessions (like a lot of restrictionists) talks about "uncontrolled immigration," he's not even talking about illegal immigration. He's talking about the "million mostly low-wage permanent legal immigrants who can work, draw benefits and become voting citizens."

Sessions' views on immigration are not only factually incorrect, they are influential in the GOP. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has said that he changed his mind on the topic after listening to Sessions' arguments about restricting newcomers. Walker used to be a lot like Jeb Bush. Not no more.

Elsewhere, Sessions has railed against Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for multiple reasons, not least of which is that any sort of agreement "could facilitate immigration increases above current law." Like a good populist, Sessions keeps pushing the idea that TPA, which has been used in such situations since 1974, will somehow lead to Congress voting on a deal it isn't allowed to read ahead of time. That's simply not true. The negotiations between the American team and the other countries are confidential (which makes sense). The TPP will be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Not secret.

As I wrote at The Daily Beast this week, Republican animus against i

Georgetown Bookshop

immigration is wildly out of line with the rest of the country. Fully 84 percent of Republicans say they are "dissatisfied" with current levels of immigration (presumably, they want them decreased). Yet just 39 percent of all Americans say they are dissatisfied and want to see a decrease.

Last fall, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 60 percent of Americans want to give illegals a path to citizenship—a figure that that "jumps to a whopping 74 percent if you qualify that the undocumented immigrants must take steps like paying back taxes."

From my Beast column:

In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney pulled just 27 percent of the increasingly important Hispanic vote. That was despite the fact that Barack Obama is, in Nowrasteh's accurate term, "Deporter in Chief" who repatriated more immigrants far more quickly than George W. Bush. Hispanics aren't stupid—44 percent of them voted for immigrant-friendly Bush in 2004. They knew things could always get worse and probably would for them under Romney.

With 2016 coming into clearer and clearer focus—and with Hillary Clinton doing her own flip-flop on immigration and now embracing newcomers—the GOP and its presidential candidates have a choice to make. They can follow Ronald Reagan's example and embrace libertarian positions on immigration and free trade. Or they can follow Jeff Sessions's retrograde populism and see just how few Hispanic votes they can pull.

Read the full article.

Good luck with the future, Republicans, if you follow Jeff Sessions' lead on immigration.

NEXT: Scott Shackford: Death Comes for Terry Pratchett

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I dispute your headline. The GOP was a high tariff party in the 19th C., yet here it is in the 21st. So clearly it takes more than that to kill of a political party.

    1. That makes a lot of sense if we ignore the last 100 years of political history.

      1. The point is that you can ignore them, & not only concerning this issue. The major parties do whatever they need to to achieve ~50:50 over the long run.

    2. If the GOP is the party of the Chamber of Commerce and stands for unlimited immigration and free trade, what constituency will vote GOP and give them a majority?

      If the GOP stands for workers wages, then they can form a majority party.

  2. The changing demographics of the U.S. are going to kill libertarianism long before they kill the Republican Party. Of course there will always be plutocrats willing to shovel a few bucks into the pockets of willing shills, but Open Borders weekly isn’t going to have room for Nick Gillespie, Dahlmia, Shackleford et al. A lot of Reasonids might want to be constantly updating the old resume.

    1. What, you think libertarianism is something people practice for $?

      1. Libertarians were doing so well until these Mexicans and Colombians got into the country.

        1. You have to go back to 1964 to find a presidential election where more white voters voted democrat than voted republican.

          1. So what?

            1. They voted against their own interests in ’64.

    2. BEEP BOOP DIPSHIT SOCK BEEP BWAP MOOP

  3. As I wrote at The Daily Beast this week, Republican animus against iGeorgetown Bookshop
    Georgetown Bookshop
    immigration is wildly out of line with the rest of the country. Fully 84 percent of Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with current levels of immigration (presumably, they want them decreased). Yet just 39 percent of all Americans say they are dissatisfied and want to see a decrease.

    And only 8 percent said they are satisfied and want an increase. It seems we’re the ones who are “wildly out of line with the rest of the country.” But fortunately for us the Stupid Party is Stupid and seemingly incapable of thinking more than four years into the future.

    1. It’s really sad when even this pathetic troll can argue more honestly than the writers.

      1. Youre agreement with “International Jew” speaks only to your own short-comings. Maybe its time to reconsider your scruples when you find them inline with a raving anti-semite.

        1. I didn’t say I agreed with him. I said , in this one instance, that he was being more honest than Nick. My scruples are just fine. Among them is an aversion to resorting to dishonesty to make my argument look better.

  4. Sam Hayson and the troll KA International Jew; a stupid stew!
    Getcher popcorn!

  5. What is funny about this is Nick’s claim that there is much the Republicans can do to appeal to the rising Hispanic minority. Who was President of the US when we had the last round of amnesty? And that helped, how? The current Democrat has deported more people than the previous Republican but something, something Hispanics will vote Republican?

    This is much like the fallacy that the incentives for police violence are based upon race instead of wealth. Just like police mostly abuse the poor, poor people mostly vote Democrat. Republicans can speak all the Spanish and eat all the tacos that they want, it is the policies of the Democrats (redistribution and special group rights) which will continue to draw the majority of Hispanic voters.

    And Nick fucking knows this. Couching his article as helpful advice to people he hates is the weakest type of advocacy journalism.

    1. The current Democrat has deported more people than the previous Republican but something, something Hispanics will vote Republican?

      And if for some reason Romney got more Hispanic votes than Bush, reason would use it as evidence of “Hispanic backlash against the Democrats’ policy of deporting illegals.” For them, it’s always “here’s our argument, let’s go find some facts we can twist into supporting it. The “record number of deportations” is a lie BTW:

      http://www.washingtontimes.com…../?page=all

      1. Hilarious! The Obama administration admits that they have deported more people. It is right in the fucking article. Sure, in typical fashion, they claim that their deportations were, like, totally different, so they don’t compare. Still. More. Of. Them.

        Unsurprising that you agreed with the bullshit peddled by the WH.

    2. It’s hardly crazy to think the GOP should stop digging.

      1. Your country’s immigration policy is infinitely more “authoritarian” than the one Jeff Sessions would like to implement. Tend your own garden. We don’t care about what Canada does can you return the favor.

        1. Bravo Sam !

    3. Bush got 39% against boring white guy Kerry. Obama would have got 70% of the hispanic vote against GW Bush as well.

      The GOP only needs 5% more of the white vote to win.

      Pro-borders Chuck Grassley is going to win Iowa by 20 points while open borders Portman, Ayotte, Kirk and others are going to lose in states that are less blue than Iowa. Scott Brown got 49% in a state he carpetbagged into even being hamstrung by his idiotic move to let Jeb campaign with him.

      Steve King is the dominant congressman in Iowa. He wins conservatives and indies. While Loebasack turns his D+5 district into a swing district, Steve King is wallopping opponents by 24 points in an R+5 district. In Arizona which is about as red as Iowa’s 4th district, Jeff Flake could barely beat a token candidate 49% to 46%. Jeff Flake is the second most unpopular Senator after John McCain.

      1. At the height of a loose credit fed housing boom that literally tanked the US economy when it exploded no less.

  6. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

    Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    1. And about half of people aged 18 to 30 favor bigger government with more taxes. So it appears you also cannot have a welfare state and young people at the same time.

      I agree with shrinking or abolishing the welfare state. However, it’s important to remember who set it up in the first place and who keeps it in place.

      https://reason.com/poll/2014/07…..nment-if-l

      1. “And about half of people aged 18 to 30 favor bigger government with more taxes. So it appears you also cannot have a welfare state and young people at the same time.”

        It does appear from the poll you cite that the welfare state is not going to shrink much, even after the boomer hippies all die off and the Torch Is Handed To A New Generation Of Americans.

        Not much of a response to those who think the welfare state is incompatible with open borders.

        1. My point is that it is silly to worry about immigrants swamping the welfare system when the vast majority of recipients are American citizens. The increase in number of Americans on food stamps or disability in the past few years absolutely dwarfs any increase from immigrants, legal or not. In a few years, the number of retirees will swamp Social Security and Medicare. That is not hypothetical. It will absolutely happen.

          Forget about the border for a moment. The welfare state is incompatible with a stable, prosperous society, period. Japan is practically sealed off from the world and they are in demographic free fall.

          I don’t understand why people get worked up about welfare for illegals when vast, unsustainable amounts of welfare are going to Americans. I guess it’s easier to demonize foreigners than retirees.

          1. Japan is practically sealed off from the world and they are in demographic free fall.

            Japan is the size of California and has 127 million people. It will undoubtedly be hell on earth when they have 90 million people. The poverty, the instability, old people rioting in the streets…..

            1. They’re going to have a hard time keeping things going if those remaining 90 million people are all too old or sick to work.

              1. Nah, the bots will do all the work by then…

              2. It’s Japan. Robots.

      2. So it appears you also cannot have a welfare state and young people at the same time.

        You… don’t know why people say you can’t have open borders and a welfare state, do you? That was an impressively stupid non sequitur.

        1. I am pointing out that the welfare state is a dumb idea regardless of immigration policy.
          It doesn’t matter if you have open immigration, no immigration, or anything in between.

          In other words, the existence of a welfare state is irrelevant to what the ideal immigration policy is.

          1. I don’t see how that follows. The welfare state is always a bad idea so….immigration is always a good idea?

            1. It’s not supposed to follow. Do you understand what the word “irrelevant” means?

              I think open immigration is generally best. The US prospered when it had high immigration. And it fits with freedom of movement.

              I could see restricting immigration during an epidemic, but that’s about it. If it’s immoral to keep people in, it’s immoral to keep people out.

              As for other countries, so what if they restrict immigration more harshly? Other countries do all kinds of stupid things I have desire to see this country do.

              1. Milton Friedman made the point that immigration is Always Good without a welfare state(which I disagree with), but Not Always Good with a welfare state.

              2. True, the US prospered when it had high immigr’n, but it may have had high immigr’n because it prospered more than vice versa..

              3. The US prospered most from 1920-1965 when immigration was low.

                1. GarryJpoint99|5.16.15 @ 7:14PM|#
                  “The US prospered most from 1920-1965 when immigration was low.”
                  Cite(s) missing, and bullshit presumed.

          2. In other words, the existence of a welfare state is irrelevant to what the ideal immigration policy is.

            But open borders makes it a much, much worse idea. It’s not hard to see these things

            1. So we should take one injustice, the states trampling on property rights through income redistribution, and use that as an excuse to commit a further injustice, by having the state trample on the rights of free association and movement.

              Great plan. Its working splendid so far.

              Exactly which “welfare” programs are undocumented immigrants eligible for again?

        1. It’s much more in this case because the young are more numerous and will live longer.

          1. But is their opinion age- or cohort-driven? If it’s age-driven, it doesn’t matter how long they live, it’s just a fx of their age. Only if it’s cohort-driven does it mean they’ll keep that opinion as they age.

      3. The only poll on immigration that matters is the Oregon poll where 66% rejected pandering to illegals with driver cards.

        In Arizona various measures from human trafficking, English only and other ballot measures garnered 60-80% of the vote. Jeff Sessions gets 99% of the vote and Gary Johnson gets 1% of the vote.

        In Montana LR121 garnered 79.50% of the vote.

        The only hope for a smaller government was lost when Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul lost.

    2. If Romney got 60% of the hispanic vote he would have lost because of his poor showing with midwest whites.

  7. While open borders might be a central pillar of some peoples definition of libertarianism it certainly is not part of a world based on free markets. There is no right to movement in a free market world except on property you own. Any other movement requires the permission of the owners.

    Borders are a vital part of a free market world, there would be up to 7 billion borders and just because nations have usurped and combined borders into a mere 200 or so does not mean that borders are not legitimate.

    Getting a borderless world will involve massive government intervention and the theft of rights from billions of people.

    Some who call themselves libertarian seem to have no problem with government force being used to push their no borders agenda. That may be what they want but it certainly is not part of the free market.

    1. This is hilarious. You 1) conflate private property rights with collective national borders that are an arbitrary creation of the state, and 2) you try and pretend that there isn’t massive government intervention, violation of rights, and force involved in stopping people’s free movement (and at the same time, enforcing the WoD and other bullshit…because they can).

      This is the most projecting, inverted “logic” ever. Congratulations. Keep twisting that pretzel in your head around to justify your utterly illiberal desire to control the movement of people you don’t like. The fact that you can actually pretend that a War on Free Movement and Labor isn’t somehow exactly like a War on Drugs is mind-blowing.

      But keep spouting the exact same copied-and-pasted stupidity in every thread. Maybe if you do it enough times, it’ll get less stupid. (It won’t.)

      1. I tend to agree with you epi on these points.

        but if i have to ding Ed or Nick’s articles on immigration… its the insistence on the term “Open Borders”.

        The whole debate about immigration has been couched in this idiotic, absolutist terminology which isn’t reflective of what actual policies people should be getting behind.

        I personally think the libertarian obsession with being on the “right side” of immigration (“pro immigration”, or call it ‘open borders’) hurts the movement by failing to clarify what’s wrong with the existing system, why doubling down on failed Enforcement policies will actually do little to nothing to actually bring about a “less mexican” future, and will end up being a useless financial drain on par with the War on Drugs.

        Rather than cheer-leading this utopian ideal of “Open Borders” (which is misleading, unrealistic, and probably not even desirable), libertarians should be picking apart all the micro-problems of the current approach to immigration-management, and pointing out that Streamlining and Simplifying the system is in everyone’s best interests.

        1. “”‘Gilmore writes”””

          “”””‘The whole debate about immigration has been couched in this idiotic, absolutist terminology which isn’t reflective of what actual policies people should be getting behind.””‘

          But Open Borders type don’t realize what absolutists ideas get, free market does not get open borders, it gets up to7 billion borders. Everyone is a King, but only over themselves and their property.

          “”””Rather than cheer-leading this utopian ideal of “Open Borders” (which is misleading, unrealistic, and probably not even desirable), libertarians should be picking apart all the micro-problems of the current approach to immigration-management, and pointing out that Streamlining and Simplifying the system is in everyone’s best interests.””‘

          “Everyone’s best interest”????. Who is going to decide that????. I thought free market believers were in favor of each property owner deciding what their own best interest was.

          1. You’re not critiquing any actual things i said so much as proving the point.

            1. Proving my point.

              So without government how many borders would there be. 0 or up to 7 billion

              1. No, you’re a towel.

      2. No real answer, just insults.

        Please show me where you have the right to move on other peoples property?

        Without government your dreams of free movement are just that, dreams, every property owner has the right to stop you using their land for movement. So there is no right to movement outside of your own property, all movement must be negotiated and if you have to negotiate then its not a right.

        1. Hahahahaha, free movement has never existed without government? This is actually your fucking argument? Oh this is just the best. Your argument is, seriously, that you have no right to move about unless the government “negotiates” that movement for you? Are you a statist, or the statist?

          I note you utterly avoid my question: how is a War on Free Movement and Labor any different from a War on Drugs? Or are you just going to continue to pointedly not respond?

          1. “”””Hahahahaha, free movement has never existed without government? “”

            Do you think that you would be allowed to travel anywhere you want in a free market world?

            Do I have the right to travel on your property?

            Do I have the right to demand service at your hotel.

            Do you have to bake me a cake for my wedding?

            1. So wait, people couldn’t travel pretty much anywhere they wanted 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 2000 years ago? This is seriously your fucking argument? Oh my god.

              Oh, by the way, you have now pointedly, completely avoided the same pertinent question multiple times. As I predicted. I guess that says all that needs to be said about your ability to respond to it.

              1. “”””So wait, people couldn’t travel pretty much anywhere they wanted 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 2000 years ago? “””

                No they could not. They had to get permission from the owners along the way. Most people did not travel much beyond their own village.

                Sure there was Rome and its famous roads but I am hoping that a murderous, slave owning empire is not your idea of no government

                1. Now tell us about the dinosaurs.

                2. “No they could not. They had to get permission from the owners along the way. Most people did not travel much beyond their own village.”

                  I’m gonna guess you reading is very limited.
                  Ever hear of, say, the silk road?

                  1. Silk Road

                    There was no right to use the silk road, and not all were allowed to use it. It was created and guarded by the empires and naitons along the way and they did not allow just anyone to use it

                    1. DJF|5.16.15 @ 3:24PM|#
                      “There was no right to use the silk road, and not all were allowed to use it.”
                      Bullshit. You obviously have no idea what you’re posting about.

                      “It was created and guarded by the empires and naitons along the way and they did not allow just anyone to use it”
                      You’re full of shit; it was nothing of the sort.
                      It wasn’t even a ‘road’; it was a general area of travel which varied depending on weather and where the ‘pirates’ were active.
                      There was no restriction on travels except if you wondered into one of the areas where organized or disorganized ‘piracy’ was in effect, in which case they extracted some or all of your wealth.

                    2. And charged tariffs along the way

                    3. “And charged tariffs along the way”
                      Yes, various strongmen held defenseable positions at passes and river crossings where they charged for passage (and where the travelers could not avoid).
                      Which is irrelevant to the claim:
                      “There was no right to use the silk road, and not all were allowed to use it. It was created and guarded by the empires and naitons along the way and they did not allow just anyone to use it”

                    4. To be clear, the sill road was ‘created’ by those who wanted to trade with others; it was limited by those who claimed treasure from the merchants who passed, regardless of whether they were considered ‘governments’ or ‘thieves’.
                      The difference is similar to how modern governments view ‘cults’ or ‘religions’; if you can deliver a thousand votes, you are no longer a ‘cult’ in the eyes of the politicos.

                    5. I’m sure you’re going to regale us with all the source documents you’re basing this on.

                    6. That was to DJF, by the way.

                3. So…no answer. Got it. Well, that was quick.

                  1. Gave answer.

                    Where is your answer to the question if there was no government would there be 0 borders or up to 7 billion borders

                  2. So…no answer. Got it. Well, that was quick.

                    You have to understand that it has no real concept of what it’s saying. It continues to make the same mistake and conflation over and over, like a program stuck on a bad subroutine.

                    Somehow, if we have “open borders” then the situation of private property that already exists today will suddenly become a new and vexxing problem.

                    There’s only one border that matters in this discussion and it isn’t my property line or anyone else’s. It coincidentally forms the shape of the US and was drawn by the state.

                    But, BEEP BORP PROPERTY RIGHTS BERP

                4. Whose permission did the Pilgrims ask for when they set sail? Oh, that’s right: nobody.

                  Whose permission did Marco Polo get when he walked from Italy to China and back? Oh that’s right: nobody.

                  How about all those invading armies? Whose permission did they get? It certainly wasn’t from the lands they invaded.

                  Just because governments have tried to control the movement of people doesn’t mean they should.

                  1. “”””Whose permission did the Pilgrims ask for when they set sail? Oh, that’s right: nobody.”””

                    They certainly did not get permission of the Indians. But is your point that might makes right in property ownership? An interesting point of view, I wonder when Reason mag will right up some stories on it

                    “””Whose permission did Marco Polo get when he walked from Italy to China and back? Oh that’s right: nobody.”‘

                    I am betting that he had to get permission from anyone along the way who thought they owned or controlled the property he was waking on.

                    “”””How about all those invading armies? Whose permission did they get? It certainly wasn’t from the lands they invaded.””

                    Another libertarian might is right to who owns property. I wonder if Reason Mag will agree with this when I invade the Reason offices and take ownership of the Jacket

                    “”””Just because governments have tried to control the movement of people doesn’t mean they should.””‘

                    I have not been arguing that government should control the movement of people, only that government stop supporting peoples movement by taking away property owners right to control their own property.

                    1. “I have not been arguing that government should control the movement of people, only that government stop supporting peoples movement by taking away property owners right to control their own property.”

                      No one here proposed to quarter immigrants on your property, so it’s obvious that you’re inventing a strawman.

                  2. “Whose permission did Marco Polo get when he walked from Italy to China and back? Oh that’s right: nobody.”

                    Actually he had to get permission from a lot of people along the way when he first started out. Warlords controlled pasage on the route and charged tariffs or just killed you if your cargo was worth it and you couldn’t defend it. He finally got close enough to his destination that he got permission from Kabuli Khan himself. Even then he sometimes had some hair raising moments until that permission was finally accepted for what it was.

                    True Story

                    1. Yes, he had to get permission from various warlords, not various property owners, plus he managed to get where he was going, unlike DJF’s claims that no one is going anywhere since others won’t let them pass.

                5. DJF|5.16.15 @ 3:08PM|#

                  “”””So wait, people couldn’t travel pretty much anywhere they wanted 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 2000 years ago? “””

                  “No they could not. They had to get permission from the owners along the way. Most people did not travel much beyond their own village.”

                  In thinking about it now, AFAIK only China and then only under some of the dynasties had general restrictions on travel for the last 2,000 years.
                  No where in the ‘west’ (including the middle east) was there general travel embargoes. Sure, a local strongman would extract ‘customs’ to cross the land he controlled, but none barred the travel; it would have cut into the take.
                  In fact, given that the nation-state is a relatively recent invention (except in China and Egypt on the Nile), there was no mechanism to prohibit travel.
                  And while it’s true most did not travel far, that had nothing to do with any prohibition, just the costs involved.
                  So no, travel was hardly ever limited by permission to pass.

            2. You’re still writing as if all land would be occupied by property, w no public right of way to travel between the lots.

              Maybe that cartoon, “Muh roadz!” was right.

              1. Robert|5.16.15 @ 6:10PM|#
                “You’re still writing as if all land would be occupied by property, w no public right of way to travel between the lots.”

                There’s an interesting question buried in that presumption:
                Let’s say when Chris got to the ‘new world’ in 1492, he got off the boat and found one gal standing on the shore. And the gal could speak Italian…
                The gal points north, south, and west and says “I own everything west of the 50th parallel!” (she is also familiar with the medians).
                Now does that claim stand valid?

                1. (she is also familiar with the *meridians*), damn it!

      3. A nation is allowed to (some might say must) have borders that are internationally recognized. Otherwise a bunch of armed right wingers in America can drive down to Mexico and take over their towns in the name of America.

        Of course that would be illegal with or without borders. But it’s jarring to hear “A nation cannot use force to stop random people from entering its country, but they may use it to stop them if they try to take over personal property or commit crimes.”

        Libertarians try to make a distinction between national borders and private property, but for all intents and purposes, they operate on the same level. A nation belongs to a citizens and is ran by their elected officials. I’m not a citizen of Mexico or Canada. I should just march into their territories, buy their real estate, establish my own wages, and take advantage of their healthcare while I disregard their laws and pay little to no tax?

        1. If you can get away with ignoring their bad laws and their taxes, yes, go right ahead. Good luck, friend!

        2. A nation is substantively different than a collective of private individuals.

        3. “A nation is allowed to (some might say must) have borders that are internationally recognized. Otherwise a bunch of armed right wingers in America can drive down to Mexico and take over their towns in the name of America.”

          It wouldn’t be the first time ya know. Except I don’t think it’s limited to “right wingers”. Just anyone motivated to do so that has the power to make it stick.

          Lefties aren’t adverse to force when it suits their ends.

        4. “Libertarians try to make a distinction between national borders and private property, but for all intents and purposes, they operate on the same level. A nation belongs to a citizens and is ran by their elected officials”

          That is a tenet masquerading as an argument. Prove your claims before you expect others to accept them.

    2. Do you expect property to occupy all the land & leave no public rights of way?

      1. Of course, because without government there’d be no ROADZZ and we’d all live in Somalia.

  8. i love the elites pandering to the rabble by claiming to be fighting ‘the elites’.

    What we really need to do to help the working-man, Average American is take more tax money and throw it down the Enforcement Toilet. That’ll show those Elites.

    1. Hey, that money isn’t going to burn itself!

    2. What we really need to do to help the working-man, Average American is take more tax money and throw it down the Enforcement Toilet. That’ll show those Elites.

      Every immigration proposal includes that shit. There’s no way it’ll pass without the amnesty and path to citizenship bread wrapped around it.

  9. Until you stooooopid mammals develop a planetary defense shield your closed borders are an amusing footnote in your pathetic history.

    1. Why would we want a planetary defense shield. You know that our real defense is co-option of invading cultures.

      You come in, infiltrate, ‘take power’, and a couple of generations down the road you wonder how we ended up running everything.

      1. Hint: ready suppliers of warm rocks and heat lamps to willing customers.

        1. You miss undiscalculated the effects of global warming you DENIER.

          It’s gonna be baking everywhere.

          They’re here and the end is near.

  10. Is it my imagination or did they switch the talking points pages between Jeffy and Bernie Sanders?

    1. Bernie Sanders is not as good as you might think on immigration:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..t-workers/

      He’s worried about the effects of immigration on “American workers,”(but supports it anyway) not understanding that non elite Americans are the enemy.

  11. If anyone inside the US is free to leave, shouldn’t people outside be free to come in?

    I guess you could make an exception for fugitives, but otherwise?

    1. No One ( US Citizen that is ) is free to leave. It actually costs a lot of money to leave.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

      1. Well, that makes it all better then.

  12. Immigration has always been good. No country of any kind has been harmed by immigration. You can’t have a free society and strict border control.

    1. ” No country of any kind has been harmed by immigration.”

      There’s some young ladies in Rotherham who’d like a word with you.

      1. I’d say those young ladies were harmed less by immigration than they were by a government culture that marginalized them and a social culture that frowns on taking justice into your own hands even when the ‘authorities’ ignore you.

        After all, its not like there isn’t significant muslim immigration into the US – we’re just far less afraid of the ‘R’ word.

        1. I have no ideda what the “R” word is but we also haven’t the level of Muslim immigration so far to make it a problem.

          Hopefully we never will have. But some countries have had and they are begining to pay the price.

          http://archive.frontpagemag.co…..RTID=30675

        2. Except that there isn’t actually significant Muslim immigration into the U.S. Those ladies were harmed entirely be immigration. That entire system was reliant on the fact that a huge population of Immigrants had no sympathy for any native Englanders. Nevermind that without immigration racism doesn’t really become an issue in England does it.

          1. Sam Haysom|5.16.15 @ 8:25PM|#
            “[…]Those ladies were harmed entirely be immigration. That entire system was reliant on the fact that a huge population of Immigrants had no sympathy for any native Englanders.[…]”
            I presume you have cites for claims like that, right Sam? Or are you just spouting bullshit in the hopes someone is as stupid as you?

            “Nevermind that without immigration racism doesn’t really become an issue in England does it.”
            So of the English keep out those brown folks, nobody gripes about the brown folks? Please define “racism”, Sam.

    2. Yeah, ask the American Indians how it worked out for them.

      The only ones that came out of it okay were the ones living in the farthest reaches, basically.

      Ask the original Spanish settlers of California how it worked out for them.

      Ask the Copts in the Egypt. Or the Kurds in Kurdistan. Ask the Armenians or the Greeks how well the Turks have treated them. Ask the Sami people in the Nordic countries.

      Ask Boudica. Ask the people in Britain before the Celts.

      It works out great for the people who are coming in, sure. But rarely does it work out for the original people.

      1. When you let people in, you are basically letting in your new rulers.

        You better be damn sure who you let in.

        1. JeremyR|5.16.15 @ 9:11PM|#
          “When you let people in, you are basically letting in your new rulers.”

          That is one collection of cherry-picked examples, false examples and just plain horseshit.

  13. and the End of the Roman Empire had something to do with high levels of “immigration” too…

    1. Sure, and Poland was destroyed by German ‘immigration’ also by that standard.

      1. Some “immigrate” harder than others! Why, the Russians can really *immigrate*!

      2. Not every “babbarian” weilded arms. Some were just cooks and metalsmiths.

        Peeople who just wanted to work and would do the jobs the Romans wouldn’t do.

        1. This is completely true. The Barbarian invasion was basically a vanguard of warriors leading a baggage train of family members in search of oppurtunity.

          1. “[…]a baggage train of family members in search of oppurtunity.”

            You misspelled “plunder”.

  14. If Jeff Sessions’ Anti-Immigration and Free Trade Stances Are the Future of the GOP, It Has No Future.

    I disagree. There are plenty of self-identified *libertarians* on this board who are passionately opposed to any but the most restrictive immigration policies and more than a few who are pro-protectionism for domestic industries.

    If that percentage carries over to the libertarian wing of the Republican party (and taking as given that mainstream Republicans are more likely to support those policies) then the GOP will do just fine.

    Because its the average, middle of the road Democrat opposes free-trade and immigration also (unions – they terk ur jerbz!).

  15. Why does Nick want to strengthen copyright law, tax Japanese auto imports, pass E-verify, hire more border patrol goons and build a fence around the country? Doesn’t seem very libertarian

    And Jeff Sessions’ job is to do what’s best for the State of Alabama, not the “future of the GOP”.

    1. Sessions is in good company. Vitter overcame prostitution story to win by 19 points. Pat McCrory flipped all of NC with 70% of the white vote. Arizona passed every immigration ballot measure with a Democrat in the Governor office and RINOs statewide in other offices. Paul LePage won in Maine on amnesty. Governor Bryant united Tea Party and Establishment in Mississippi.

  16. Will this place become any less retarded after the election, do you think? Or is it a lost cause and the TEAM RED infestation permanent?

    1. [pours out the vials of the wrath of God upon the board]

    2. Hey asshole, some young girls in a ferrin country got diddled by immigrants once.

      YOU MUST WANT EVERYONE TO GET RAPED.

      1. GOOBLE GARBLE TALKING POINT BEEP BOOP

      2. #BRINGBACKOURANALVIRGINITIES

    3. Which election? There are elections all the time, all over the place. None of them are labeled Last Election Ever, either.

    4. Don’t make me drive my pickup truck down to your ivy covered office, perfesser!

    5. Warty is a Bo alt?

      Not that surprising, actually.

      Hey, Bo! fuck off!

  17. Jeb Bush, is openly in favor of current (much less expanded) levels of immigration.

    I await Nick’s “the libertarian case for Jeb Bush” essay…

    Is this even true? No other GOP candidates favor increased immigration? Hell, Romney was pushing the “foreign students earning American STEM degrees should receive diplomas with green cards stapled to the back” last election. Has the Educated Asian Peril thing gone bipartisan now ?

  18. The first priority of any Republican-led comprehensive immigration reform package must end the “illegal immigration-magnet” that has presently allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens to live and work here in this country from happening again ten years down the road. The only way to achieve this goal is to remove the incentives for those who would cross our borders illegally. The first incentive that must be removed is birthright citizenship for the offspring born in this country of illegal aliens.

    1. A “comprehensive immigration reform package”: isn’t going to repeal the 14th Amendment.

  19. Yes, because letting in millions of voters who will vote Democrat is really going to save the party.

  20. By all means, let’s continue to import millions and millions of poorly educated non-English speaking people and give them welfare benefits. That should really stimulate the hell out of the economy.

  21. Open Borders may work when there are no more food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare and other government assistance programs and not before . To try to increase immigration while such programs still exists will just make their use and abuse even greater.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.