Immigration

Anti-Immigration Conservatives Hit a New Low

What's wrong with letting undocumented immigrants serve in the U.S. military?

|

If Cesar Vargas ever becomes a military lawyer, the terrorists will have already won. Or so says Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary contest a little less than a year ago. Brat says people such as Vargas represent nothing less than the decline of Western civilization.

Vargas' parents brought him to the United States from Mexico more than a quarter-century ago, when he was 5. He went to school, then to college, and then to law school, making honor lists along the way. He interned with the New York Supreme Court. When the court considered his application to join the bar, it rated his performance "stellar." But his status as an unauthorized resident alien got in his way.

Vargas aspired to join the military. "This country has given me so much, I do want to be able to give back," he recently told NPR. A provision in the latest defense-authorization bill would have taken a small—very small—step toward letting him. It would have expressed the sense of Congress that the Pentagon should study the question of whether unlawfully present immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces someday.

Cue the exploding heads.

When they discovered the provision, conservative Republicans threatened to derail the entire $612 billion defense measure. Brat, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, and a couple dozen others cranked out an amendment to strip it from the bill, which passed easily. Brat trumpeted the victory in a misleading news release. The House cut language "that encouraged the U.S. armed forces to recruit illegal immigrants," it claimed—leaving the impression the Pentagon would have set up recruitment offices along the Rio Grande to sign up fence-jumping farm workers.

Last week Brat appeared on the John Fredericks talk-radio show. Fredericks blasted the idea of letting undocumented immigrants serve in the military. "What's going on out there?" he asked. As noted by Lowell Feld of the blog Blue Virginia, Brat served up a reply for the ages.

"What's going on is the decline of Western Civilization at the highest level," Brat said. (Not just any level—the highest level.) "I think everybody knows their old Roman history; part of the reason Rome fell was because they started hiring the barbarians in, otherwise known as the Germans at the time, to be troops in their own army, and that led to their eventual downfall."

The 7th District representative went on to say that during floor debates some had suggested the willingness of immigrants to serve in the military showed a certain degree of patriotism. "I wanted to stand up and shout, I mean ISIS is willing to serve in our military as well."

Honor-list law school graduates who've clerked for state courts, religious psychopaths who've slit the throats of infidels—they're pretty much the same, right? Eisenhower built roads. Hitler built roads. Eisenhower and Hitler were no different either, when you think about it.

Immigration hard-liners, including Brat, insist their objections have nothing to do with immigration per se; they object only to the unlawful kind. We have two good reasons to doubt them. First, about 1 million aliens legally enter the U.S. each year. If legal status alone is the problem, then immigration hawks should be willing to admit far more—5 million or even 10 million a year, say. If they are not, then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is just a smokescreen.

Second, we are now hearing Republicans suggest the U.S. might need tighter limits on legal immigration. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker already has said so. And though Brat claims he has "never said I am against legal immigration," he has said things that leave a distinctly different impression. In an interview last year, Brat told another radio host that skilled immigrants also should stay home: "The best thing for the home country is to end the political corruption there and so we shouldn't take the very people, the high skilled Ph.D.s and masters out of the home country, they need to stay there, take care of the political corruption and dictators back home, so we can all trade and get rich together."

Brat makes a big deal out of being an economist who "understands that a free and growing economy is necessary" for jobs and prosperity. But he has voiced doubts about the same fast-track trade authority every president since Roosevelt has had, and he wants to erect high barriers at the border to the free flow and exchange of labor. Granted, that will keep potential terrorists like Vargas from blowing up military bases. No word yet on how Brat plans to stop U.S. citizens and military veterans like Nidal Hasan and Timothy McVeigh.

NEXT: Zach Weissmueller Interviews Cambrian Genomics CEO Austen Heinz

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. Popcorn! Getcher popcorn! And down in front, please!

  2. I do want to be able to give back

    Unless soldiers are working for free now, I don’t understand this sentence.

    1. There is a long established narrative that being a soldier is a service to the country, not wholly or even mostly compensated by the attendant salary and benefits. One can argue with this, but it is a narrative of long standing, and should be acknowledged.

      1. “There is a long established narrative that being a soldier is a service to the country, not wholly or even mostly compensated by the attendant salary and benefits.”

        And when there was a draft, it was hard to argue that the compensation was adequate.

        1. Point? The draft ended about 2 or 3 generations ago. Lots of things were different then.

          1. 1973? 42 years ago? two or three generations?

      2. it is a narrative of long standing, and should be acknowledged.

        Because, like the folks over at Huffpo, the narrative needs to be upheld, even if it is in opposition with the truth? You can shove that fucking “narrative” right where the sun doesn’t shine.

        The last thing a Libertarian should want is for us to provide citizenship to keep the ranks of our overextended military filled so that we can continue foreign adventures.

        Which is it, “Libertarians”, do you oppose foreign adventures or not? They are all good as long as we import all the soldiers and give them citizenship?

  3. How many new handles will Tulpa post under today?

    1. He’s still using the shriek handle as if he hadn’t been busted for it. He really is a one trick pony, isn’t he.

      1. I apparently missed that. Really? That puts Tulpa into the Mary class doesn’t it?

        1. Here you go. It looks like Tulpa is what we thought Mary was. Ponder that.

        2. It puts that twisted, demented, tenure-less cunt into a class of all-by-himself.

          Watch your stove for boiling bunnies.

      2. Seriously?

        1. It was ugly. He’s Bo and Buttplug. And likely several more. I think we was drunk yesterday. He made a lot of mistakes.

          1. *he was.

            I didn’t get drunk til last night.

          2. He’s deranged. What thread did he meltdown in?

            1. See my link above.

            2. Here’s the money shot:

              Swampybum|5.24.15 @ 4:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

              It’s nearly impossible not to gloat when repelling idiocy of this magnitude.

              You, Epi, and SF are far more similar in your styles than any trio on this blog, but as I’m not a paranoid lunatic, I just assume you’re three assholes who happen to come to the same place.

              reply to this

          3. I’m of two minds about this.

            On the one hand, it’s sad to see anyone so disturbed. This isn’t Mary Stack level, but it’s not far.

            On the other hand, I’m glad that’s only one person that stupid, not multiples.

          4. Yeah, so maybe the Omnitroll theory was right all along. Did you catch that he said his original handle was cunnivore?

            1. I can see that Tulpa is Bo (figures) not so sure about PB and blank.

              1. Tulpa is Bo

                That should have been obvious to everyone after the first few “Bo” posts.

                1. I suspect he is also aabby110, pedeposap, and scovelisiahi in that thread… but I can’t back it up yet..

                  1. I think he’s also Warty, Playa Manhattan, and Pathogen.

          5. “He’s Bo and Buttplug.”

            And Swampybum.

            He seems to have an anal fixation.

  4. You can run down Brat all you want, but the man is actually representing the people of his district – unlike Cantor. And Brat’s inaccurate take on the decline of Rome no doubt resonates with those ignoramuses that voted for him – them being all noble citizens of the great republic (which of course had actually ceased to exist centuries before).

    This is the Burkean dilemma, and as stupid as the conservative leadership may be – in this they are not out of step with the people that elected them.

    1. And Brat’s inaccurate take on the decline of Rome no doubt resonates with those ignoramuses that voted for him – them being all noble citizens of the great republic (which of course had actually ceased to exist centuries before).

      That annoys me more than anything else

    2. You know who else wasn’t out of step with the people who elected him?

  5. It strikes me that both sides of the immigration debate – at least as it stands – deserve a swift kick in the plums. The anti-immigration nutters repeat claptrap that could, with the substitution of “Irish” for “Hispanic”, be culled from the gutter journals of the 19th Century. The pro-immigrant pillocks simply will not hear any word said against open borders and apparently view any concern over honest ballot procedure to be a sin tantamount to child sacrifice.

    The Immigration service needs to stop doing stop-and-harrass for the War of Drugs and start building a border wall. The wall is necessary, not because I hate Hispanics but because in it absence to much else could ooze up from Mexico, a failed State. I would like to put off as long as possible the day when some misguided fanatics set of a terror attack to make 9/11 seem insignificant, because on that day the United States will become an Imperial Power.

    The laws governing who can obtain a visa and/or legally enter the U.S. must be changed. They exist as they stand largely because while they are not enforced with any vigor, there is no pressure to change them. Therefore we need to start enforcing them.

    Illegal immigrants in this country exist in a legal limbo, unfair to them and dishonorable for us. It must stop. And, so far, nobody is talking about any measures likely to succeed.

    1. The wall is necessary, not because I hate Hispanics but because in it absence to much else could ooze up from Mexico, a failed State.

      Mexico is not a failed state.

      1. Funny how no one runs down Mexico for their vigilance on their southern border.

      2. Hogwash.

        1. Hogwash.

          Do you seriously think a country with peaceful elections and membership in the OECD is a failed state?

          The World Bank classifies Mexico as an upper middle income country. Once you get out of the dirt poor northern provinces of Mexico, the fact that Mexico is not a failed state becomes even more obvious since the middle and south of Mexico are very wealthy by Latin American standards.

          What do you think a failed state is?

          1. The south (by which I mean the provinces south of Mexico City) is generally poorer than the north. Many of the northern provinces are actually relatively wealthy, the border regions have just been ravaged by the drug war. Monterrey is in Northern Mexico and is the wealthiest big city in Mexico and one of the wealthiest in Latin America. Despite the higher poverty, the south has generally not been hit as bad by the drug war and crime’s not as high.

            I agree with your main point. Mexico has it’s problems but it’s not a failed state. A failed state is like Somalia (the Great Libertarian Paradise that it is). I also don’t think a wall is really gonna fix whatever problems do spill over.

          2. According to the CIA Factbook, they are not a failed state…yet.
            They are very far down the road to becoming one with the lawlessness of both the population and the government. Why they want the Southwest USA is a mystery because there are vast areas of their current territory that are not under government control.
            Nobody wants to be a cop there because the citizenry has no respect for the law and people don’t want to be judges because if a judge issues a conviction ruling for a criminal they don’t live long. The government, from the cities to Mexico DF are bought and paid for by the cartels. They haven’t had an election that wasn’t tampered with in nearly a century.
            Sorry to tell you this but if they are not yet a ‘failed state’ they are going that direction quite rapidly.
            Some sources say they are due for a revolution.

        2. Mexico is the 14th largest economy on the planet. I don’t know how on Earth you can look at Mexico and conclude it’s a failed state.

          1. As an upper-income country, it has no reason to export all it’s lower-class dysfunction to us. It’s perfectly well able to take care of those people.

            1. Sounds like you ought to be running for office in Old Mexico, pardner. You could run on the “Stop Exporting Po Folks and Create a Vibrant Social Safety Net” platform.

              Let me guess: Huckabee voter?

              1. You’ve got to be kidding me, Tulpa. Really???

            2. ” it has no reason to export all it’s lower-class dysfunction to us.”

              Actually, everyone has every reason to “export all it’s lower-class dysfunction to us.”

              But *we* have no reason to accept that export.

      3. My area had a bicycle rally for charity the other day, and a 57 year old lawyer and grandfather was run down by an illegal. The lawyer was thrown into the back of the pickup the illegal was driving, and was carried 3 miles, until he was seen and a citizen called the police. The illegal admitted he had been drinking and smoking pot, and did not have a drivers license or SS #. This tragedy-and many others like it-could be avoided simply by enforcing laws this nation has had on the books for literally centuries. No one is anti-immigrant, but illegals are just that-illegal. By ignoring the law to get in, far too many-like this man-ignore the law once here. Dreamer? Then fine-dream of coming here legally. Otherwise, you are not welcome. The current situation is not only untenable, it is unacceptable.

        1. Your random story is duly noted. One time I was punched in the face and had my nose broken by an American citizen. BAN ALL AMERICANS!

          1. Hey, now — if trotting out the stellar DREAMer lawyer soldier wunderkind is fair, then so is the drunk driver. You wanna bet a dollar on which stereotype there is more common in real life?

      4. I would say it is pretty much a disaster as a country. So much so that we can’t keep millions of their people from sneaking into our country.

    2. “a border wall”

      I didn’t grow up in the 1980s and watch communism collapse so our country could double down on how fucking stupid that particular idea was

      1. There’s a big difference between keeping people in and keeping them out. Your locked house is not a prison cell.

        1. “There’s a big difference between keeping people in and keeping them out.”

          Not when they are both built out of irrational fear.

          And will be enormously expensive, utterly useless. Nothing is so pathetic as a national security-blanket.

          1. I don’t think there’s anything irrational about fearing mass illegal immigration. We’re a broke welfare state, low-skilled immigration lowers wages at the bottom, and the immigrants empower the statists, either directly through voting, or indirectly, by giving the statists more evidence of “racism” and “income inequality,” and by increasing the populations of Democrat districts. “Freedom of movement” is a libertarian principle, but the real-world results of tens of millions of Latin Americans moving here is distinctly anti-libertarian.

            1. I don’t think there’s anything irrational about fearing mass illegal immigration.

              That’s because you don’t think at all and have your head up your ass on this issue.

              the real-world results of tens of millions of Latin Americans moving here is distinctly anti-libertarian

              “We have to destroy freedom to save it from TEH FOREIGNER.”

              What part of ‘fuck off?’ don’t you get? What part of ‘It’s not the government’s job to indulge your irrational pants-shitting tendencies?’

              PapayaSF is a really good synechdoche for ‘why conservatives are fucking useless’. They love freedom-except when they don’t. And guess what they prioritize? Their anti-freedom agenda. See also, ‘Patriot Act’. Being stupid but not impossibly stupid, many conservatives are now slowly realizing we were right on this issue. I am sure in 10-15 years they will sheepishly admit they were stupid hysterics on immigration, just like they were on gay marriage. I am tired of having to spoon-feed these anti-intellectual yokels. I’m more interested in leaving them behind and they’d rather watch Nascar.

              1. And so Cytotoxic brings his usual calm, reasoned, nuanced, informed, polite contribution to the topic.

              2. Change your own damn country’s immigration laws first fascist. Stop trying to use my nation as your Petri dish.

                1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

              3. “That’s because you don’t think at all and have your head up your ass on this issue.”

                Well reasoned retort!

          2. I don’t want to keep them out out of irruption fear. I want to keep them out because not doing so and pretending that our immigration laws are functional creates an illegal immigrant underclass that is unfair to them and a disgrace to us. And so long as no real effort is made to keep them out, the people who are happy to take advantage of them will continue to do so.

            I think it isn’t an accident that more effort is put into Immigration patrols inside the country than on the border itself. I think that helps a certain class of people keep the hispanic community a malleable mass, and useful.

            And I think that such swine should be dangling from lamp posts, but don’t expect to see it.

            There is a difference between actual open borders, and porous ones that let in people that are thereafter exploited because they are not here legally and can be blackmailed. And I don’t think we can even discuss the former without eliminating the latter.

            1. I want to keep them out because not doing so and pretending that our immigration laws are functional creates an illegal immigrant underclass that is unfair to them and a disgrace to us. And so long as no real effort is made to keep them out, the people who are happy to take advantage of them will continue to do so.

              Incredible. “Hey desperately poor people trying to earn a living in America! We’re going to fuck you over by keeping you out because that’s fair for you.”

              1. Incredible a war-boner totting Candian, whose opinions weren’t solicited and whose country is a joke, lecturing the most immigrant friendly country on earth. Take care of the sperm in your eyes before you point fingers at the speck in the USA’s.

              2. “Hey desperately poor people trying to earn a living in America! We’re going to fuck you over by keeping you out because that’s fair for you.”

                I’m against Open Borders, but I agree with your criticism of the argument here.

                Limits on immigration are for the interests of US citizens. Obviously, immigrants voting with their feet want to come here.

              3. So its our duty to let anyone in who decides they are better off here?

              4. If we let them in, they become an exploited underclass. So long as that underclass exists there is not enough incentive to address the flawed laws that help create it.

                I have no problem with granting an amnesty, if at the same time some way is created for the people who come across the border illegally to do so legally. Grant an amnesty WITHOUT doing that, and in ten years wee are back at square one.

                The most effective way to get an obnoxious law repealed is to enforce it.

            2. “” pretending that our immigration laws are functional creates an illegal immigrant underclass that is unfair to them and a disgrace to us.”

              I agree. We need to reform our immigration laws.

              I don’t think ‘sealing the border’ is possible, and that a proper filter should be the one that provides the greatest transparency. We should have a system which gives people the ability to come here, work, and leave with greater flexibility and without the kind of hideous bureaucracy that has built up over the decades.

              1. I agree it’s a hideous bureaucracy, and that it often makes it more difficult to be a legal immigrant than an illegal one. But it’s imperative for libertarians to understand that the Democrat plan is to elect a new people, and the Chamber of Commerce plan is to drive down wages.

              2. You’ll always have a problem with “leave” part, though. Germany thought they had a handle on the system – people from South and East (at the time, Turks and Yugoslavs) come and work, earn hard currency, go home. Seemed to be working as long as the economy was humming along and more low-skilled work was needed. Once it stopped humming, Germans were surprised to find a whole lot of Turks stayed. So now what?
                And it’s not the welfare state – Germany wasn’t as generous as Scandinavian countries were at the time, and Turks would not have been eligible anyway. There was little to no integration, but again, they were not supposed to integrate, they were to be in the country a few years and leave.
                The only workable immigration policy seems to be “don’t have poor countries on your border.” Canada has a limiting, hard to get in policy, but we can have a high quota, because US still hasn’t figured how to confuse South Americans and have them cross into Canada instead.

                1. “You’ll always have a problem with “leave” part, though.”

                  Maybe. I still think it would be better managed with incentives and transparency than the freaking INS and those Border Checkpoints.

                  Politically, I think the republican party has a serious problem with how they over-react re: immigration, and they need to stop with these “security only/Secure the Border!” fantasies which the base loves so much, and start establishing the rhetoric of *how change is actually going to work*, which will be incremental rather than sweeping.

                  The CIRA of 2006 was a hugely mismanaged process, where the GOP first tried whipping up people in opposition, then made the error of actually getting behind a ‘compromise’ bill which blew up in their faces and resulted in many politicians being tarred as “too soft” on issues they had been pushing from the beginning. Too much absolutist red-meat is bad politics. Its like Abortion, which some opponents believed anything short of total-bans everywhere was “heresy”. That sort of thinking is political suicide.

                2. New American immigration policy: all deportations to be dropped off at the Canadian border.

                  Effective immediately.

                  It would almost be worth it just to watch people’s heads rotate through 270 degrees.

    3. The wall is necessary, not because I hate Hispanics but because in it absence to much else could ooze up from Mexico, a failed State. I would like to put off as long as possible the day when some misguided fanatics set of a terror attack to make 9/11 seem insignificant, because on that day the United States will become an Imperial Power.

      OR…

      We can accept the fact that the price of living in a free society is that there are going to be a certain number of terrorist attacks and the trade-off for attempting to preempt them is a loss of liberty. The more preemptive measures that are put in place the more liberty you lose. And the sad part, is there are SO MANY potential targets that no amount of preemptive pants shitting can possibly stop it anyway.

      The definition of terrorism is attempting to effect political change through fear. No fear…terror fails. In fact, this is the ONLY way to defeat terror.

      So…grab a nut…clean out your shorts and accept the fact that shit is going to happen no matter what you do. When it happens, find, arrest, try and convict those responsible and live your fucking lives instead of spending the short time you have on this earth pissing your pants in a fucking corner like a sniveling coward.

      1. Or even better, respond at that precise moment as was done in Garland TX – ventilating the religious assholes and sending them to their precious martyrdom.

      2. You do have a point. What I am afraid of, actually, is not the terror attack but what I expect our reaction to it will be. There are creatures in human garments who took great delight in telling me (during the Bush administration) that our reaction to 9/11 was “lashing out in unthinking rage”. That is eyewash. Were it so, Mecca would be a crater. But just because we didn’t lose our collective temper over 9/11 doesn’t mean we never will. 9/11 killed, what, 4,000 people? Imagine an attack that killed ten times that. Now imagine our reaction.

        It ain’t pretty.

        1. And a border wall will do nothing to stop it. You can’t stop terrorism with ‘turtling’. This is what drones and hellfire missiles and SEAL teams are for.

          1. This is what drones and hellfire missiles and SEAL teams are for.

            Which hasn’t worked in13 years of trying. But I’m sure if we hang in there just a little longer it will all turn around any minute.

            1. It could have done a lot of good if we had just had the sense to LEAVE when Saddam’s government fell. Object lesson; Don’t piss us off, because life gets really exciting when you come to our negative attention.

              It’s called Gunboat Diplomacy. It’s messy, amoral, and very effective. It’s when we stay and try to enlighten people that we run into trouble.

              1. Well, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So, invading Iraq was irrational.

                Other than that, I don’t disagree.

                You punish bad behavior after the fact. Trying to prevent bad behavior in the future is an exercise in futility.

                We lost both conflicts when we started nation building.

      3. because on that day the United States will become an Imperial Power.

        Too late

      4. Better yet, control who we let in here and only do it for our interests. Not third world countries. Start enforcing our immigration laws and put a boot hell on the necks of the progressives.

  6. What Reason needs is moooooar immigration articles. That’s not alienating (sic) enough people! Libertarian moment!

    1. All Sheldon and Shikha, all the time.

  7. Is the system so screwed up that Mr. Vargas couldn’t get naturalized in all those years? If so, there are worse problems than Congressman Brat that need attention.

  8. of course he should be able to serve in the military AFTER he becomes a citizen, just like anyone else. Currently however he is an illegal alien and so are his parents, criminals all.

    1. So, as a compromise, copy the French (and Romans before them) and create the United States Foreign Legion? Serve for X years (10 I guess, as per Roman auxilla) and if you make it, citizenship and pension. There are worse immigration plans, I think…

      1. I like it. Didn’t the confederacy promise freedom to any slaves who donned the grey?

        1. Too late in the war to make any difference.

      2. So as a libertarian, you suggest a new government agency with new programs and spending?

        Uh, ok…………

  9. Peak SJW

    3. STOP CALLING GUACAMOLE “GUAC”

    Guacamole is delicious. We can all agree on that. But the word itself also has significance as it comes from indigenous Nahuatl language, so please make the effort to pronounce it in its entirety.

    According to Toltec legends (another group of people you should read on), the recipe came from their god Quetzacoatl. That makes guacamole a god-given gift to Earth. You’re welcome, world.

    4. DON’T MODIFY OUR WORDS TO PHONETICALLY MATCH YOUR FRATERNITY OR SORORITY NAME

    Fiesta turns to “Phiesta.” Guacamole turns to “guakamole.” Usually these parties are packed with non-Mexican students dressed in sombreros and ponchos holding a Tecate or Corona. And they probably all love Taco Bell.

    I appreciate the creativity, but while you’re at it, why not host an “immigration rephorm” rally? Or an “edukation” and “healthkare” awareness event focused on access for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the U.S.?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. I don’t do any of those things. I celebrate Cinco de Mayo like any red blooded American. By filling my sink with mayonnaise and googling Latino lesbian porn.

      1. Is the mayonnaise thing so cool that I don’t even know about it yet?

        I’m always the last to know.

        1. I believe it’s a pun.

          1. And here I thought it was sexual.

      2. You have to Google it? Bookmarks, son!

    2. The author of that piece should phuk him/herself with an empty talllboy Tekate. I’ll goddamn well call it guac, green stuff, avocado dip or whatever I want too. Taco Bell is delicious. And sombreros are awesome, especially when drunk college girls are wearing them.

      1. But wouldn’t you rather spend your Cinco de Mayo discussing edukkkation rephorm?

        1. I don’t mind, but the people across from me usually end up in tears.

      2. I’m having Taco Bell for lunch. Seriously, I’m planning that 3 hours in advance.

        1. It’s always a good idea to give your colon fair warning.

          1. It’s a combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. I’ll be out of commission until tomorrow.

            1. Fast food speed-balling!

            2. You never go full Pizza Bell.

              1. Don’t laugh. Taco Bell is nature’s purest, most effective colonic.

                1. I’m replying from the toilet.

    3. “The Nahuatls never used abbreviations, so you shouldn’t, either!!”

      1. Maybe the Aztec civilization would still be around if they had used abbreviations! It saves a lot of time, guys.

        1. Especially when carving messages in stone.

    4. the word itself also has significance as it comes from indigenous Nahuatl language, so please make the effort to pronounce it in its entirety.

      OK, “guac-a-mo-le, asshole”.

      1. That’s Mr. Asshole to you!

        1. Se?or Capullo!

    5. So now we have to respect Quetzacoatl as well as The Prophet Muhammad?

      1. How about some love for Cthulu?

        1. We’ll never forgive him for devouring Quetzalcoatl .

    6. “1. DON’T BUY SOMBREROS, PONCHOS OR FAKE MUSTACHES

      “We have said time and time again: Our culture is not for you to create costumes out of. Our traditional colorful materials and attire are not for you to dress in once a year to mock and pretend to be Mexican.”

      So I guess wearing a sombrero and running around like Speedy Gonzalez is right out?

      1. So those Groucho Marx glasses/moustache combo are anti-Mexican?

        1. And don’t serve Fritos!!

      2. Funny how when the Mexican national soccer team plays in the US the stadium is packed with Mexicans wearing sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches. I guess it’s OK for them to wear silly costumes.

    7. How about we celebrate Cinco de Mayo by being pretentious scolds?

      1. If the recommended biographies are about Mexican entrepreneurs who made millions of pesos providing goods and services to the marketplace, I might be genuinely interested in reading them. I suspect, however, that they are about the lives of people who embraced Marxism and Social Justice, and who worked tirelessly to completely crush individual liberty.

      2. Is every day Cinco de Mayo?

  10. How about obtaining citizenship FIRST. Becoming a Legal immigrant.

    Instead of amnesty for border cheats, how about amnesty for tax cheats. Lets everyone stop paying income taxes, and then for the next 5 years, not require any repayment of principle or interest. Tax amnesty! Do that, then talk to me about immigration.

    Even here, we can’t have an honest debate.

    Not everyone who wants to come here is a libertarian angel that will benefit this country in every possible way. Even if they do, they will meet the socialism – Why are more immigrants in the havens of New York, California, and Seattle and not in Texas or the low-tax low-reg red states?

    Explain to me if they want to immigrate for liberty why they would prefer California to South Dakota? Especially the Socialist Valley with the tech titan nomenklatura.

    You probably can’t explain why libertarians in the USA prefer to be on the socialist coasts.

    I write this from a small town in the high plains in a low-tax, low-reg state. The last thing I want is for the socialist overflow to turn my town into a variant of a suburb of San Francisco, even if they are American Citizens.

    1. AND WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THE PHONE ASKING ME TO PRESS ONE FOR ENGLISH

    2. “Even here, we can’t have an honest debate.”

      Reason’s Open Borders party line can’t stand up to honest debate, so they’ve got to try something else.

    3. 50% of California’s immigrants are still on welfare after being in the us for years. That is all you need to know.

  11. I was hoping for a Sheldon Richman Memorial Day post. The day is still young, Reason.

    1. On Memorial Day, we pay tribute to fallen heroes like Adam Lanza.

    2. Yeah, yesterday’s wasn’t bad.

    3. “Pl?ya Manhattan.|2015/05/25 13:28:37|#5321817

      I was hoping for a Sheldon Richman Memorial Day post.”

      He wrote it earlier this month

      1. Thanks.

        And Sheldon tried to play the “War is icky, therefore I shouldn’t have to go” Conscientous Objector card. I am oh so surprised.

        I also loved how Sheldon shared his 10 Seconds Hate for Barry Goldwater because Barry thought we should actually *fight* Communism, instead of just “conscientously objecting”.

  12. Let him join – we need more cannon fodder. /shikhadalmia

  13. The comparison to Ancient Rome is an apt one. The Ancient Germans crossed the borderand began taking jobs that regular Romans just wouldn’t do. Germans would live 15 to a room and eat sausages and sauerkraut every day, and send most if their wages back home to their families. They also got paid under the table, thus avoiding taxes, but could claim all sorts of welfare benefits from the Roman government. They started clamoring for bilingual public schools and by the end of the Roman Empire, all public signage was printed in Latin AND German. Native Romans enjoyed German cuisine, however, and would snark at each other about eating “authentic” German food, and deriding the popular chain restaurants.

    1. +1 audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret

    2. Putting it in exactly those terms would’ve earned Rep. Brat my undying admiration.

    3. Lots of Americans (including, I believe, President Obama) are descended from some of those Germans, who became Western Europeans.

      1. “You haf any German in you, fraulein? You vant some?”

  14. Inspiring quotes from President Obama from his Memorial Day speech

    1. On Arlington National Cemetery

    “Hey I can see my house from here”

    2. On serving in the military

    “I watched American Sniper last week. Between the racism and all the redneck bullshit, I think I got a feel for what the military is all about.”

    3. On sacrifice

    “We really don’t pay very well you know. But these rubes keep falling for it. More power to them. We tell them we’ll pay for college, but hey, come on, I’ll do that for anybody. Hell, half of them can’t even spell PTSD, so its not like there’s a lot of take there.”

    4. On honoring service in the U.S. military

    “I really give a shit about the VA. Really. That’s why i put Eric Shinseki in charge.”

    5. On America’s debt to fallen U.S. soldiers

    “Ramadi? never heard of the place. Next question.”

    1. “3. On sacrifice

      “These sons and daughters, these brothers and sisters who lay down their lives for us – they belong to us all. They’re our children, too. We benefit from their light, their positive influence on the world.””

      We have to get over this notion that your children belong to you and start to realize they belong to us all. And that they need to be slaughtered in a desert 10,000 miles away to have a positive nfluence on the world. Melissa Harris Perry approves.

  15. Semi-OT from Torrential Prevarication: Sailing down the Crimea River

    http://thinkprogress.org/immig…..ar-dollar/

    In an email to supporters last week, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio wrote that he doesn’t have the “personal wealth” to pay for a lawyer and felt “targeted” by pro-immigration reform advocacy groups that are suing him to stop his acts of racial bias against Latinos.

    As the Los Angeles Times reported, Arpaio wrote in his email, “In some instances I have to personally pay for attorneys to represent me in these cases. I do not have the personal wealth or the wherewithal to keep up with the costly demands of paying for attorneys to defend me.”

    1. “acts of racial bias against Latinos.”

      while i dislike sheriff joe as much as anyone, i find this as fucking lame as the people who insist the problem with cops is “racism against blacks”

      He’s an anti-immigrant zealot. and he uses the cover of the law to abuse people because he can. I have no doubt he’d do the same to “border hopping Canadians” were it the sort of thing that got him re-elected in some small town in Minnesota.

      These fucking idiots should be opposed to the laws themselves, not shrieking ‘racism’. This is why the left is fucking useless as allies in any fight against abuses of power by the State.

      1. Merely sharing the info. 🙂

        1. i wasn’t bitching about you, sue.

          It is still amusing to see Joe getting some kind of comeuppance, regardless.

    2. I can’t wait to see that bastard dragged kicking and screaming from his home as it goes on the auction block to pay for judgments against him.

      1. So you applaud a US citizen losing everything because he fights back against the Soros agenda, only to be destroyed by Soros’ minions?

        You’re a real shitbag. I hope to watch one day as YOU lose everything.

    3. “In some instances I have to personally pay for attorneys to represent me in these cases. I do not have the personal wealth or the wherewithal to keep up with the costly demands of paying for attorneys to defend me.”

      Welcome to life as an “average joe”

  16. “Brat makes a big deal out of being an economist “

    The NYT is not convinced, and thinks he’s too much enamored of Jesus to do economics correctly.

    I give them credit for at least citing “Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic”, which is read far less often than Marx in college, but is far more interesting.

    “Weber’s view has since fallen out of favor, but Brat, who studied at a Presbyterian seminary before pursuing a degree in economics, has tried to carry on an extreme variant of this tradition anyway. In his doctoral thesis at American University, “Human Capital, Religion and Economic Growth,” he argued that Protestant countries grew more quickly because they were particularly supportive of scientific exploration. The role of religion was “not large compared to other factors,” but ignoring it would “be a significant omission.” Over the years, he has grown only more convinced of his views. “The one source of economic growth is virtue,” he told The Richmond Times-Dispatch last year. “It is not property rights, not law or resources, but virtue.””

    I didn’t like Eric Cantor very much either. Still, its better than someone who thinks “guac” is supposed to be offensive to Mexicans.

    1. I had to read Weber in 3 different classes. Marx only in some Mickey Mouse “Introduction to Political Philosophy” I took as a freshman. There was more Marx in the philosophy and English departments than anywhere else. (State-U, 1980s)

      1. Yeah, Weber is all over Poli. Sci. and history departments, whereas Marx is mostly read in identity studies and English courses.

    1. “. Instead of drinking, they played charades, and instead of checking Twitter, they read classical literature.”

      fucking what?

      It reads like someone who spent a week on a beach in France and now “totally gets Europe”

      1. Huh? She’s talking about her experience in the Cambridge Revolver and Pistol Society. I don’t think she’s making too sweeping of a judgement. She was getting repulsed by the SJW left, decided to check out conservatives, and had some experiences and insights. I’m not claiming she’s 100% correct, but it’s interesting and refreshingly non-dogmatic.

        1. I have a habit of reading like an editor, and reading the first paragraph, last paragraph, scanning the middle, then picking out the sentences there that I find most problematic and saying, “What the fuck is this supposed to mean?”

          Overall its not all that bad. But there are some terrible lines in there, among which is the very first one. Maybe its because its a Brit, and Catholics are always talked about like they’re “anachronistic mystical cave-people”

        2. It was nice to read that she pleasantly discovered the conservatives she hung out with weren’t the monsters she’d come to believe but then she ruins it by making the remark about libertarian being a euphemism for conservative!

          1. Yeah, the libertarian = conservative thing was glaring.

        3. She should have gone to Oxford instead.

    2. There is no use struggling any more…I love Big Brother.

      1. If you mention extortion again, I’ll have your legs broken……..

    3. “Liberals, I love you, even though you don’t understand economics, even though you sound like a band of shrieking harpies, even though I wish I could strangle you sometimes, even though you have ruined Twitter forever, even though half of the things you say make no fucking sense. Your heart is in the right place, and even if most of your ideas are unworkable, we should at least give something a try.”

      Straight up admits it’s about the feelz and intentionz!

      1. GIVE SOMETHING A TRY

      2. “Straight up admits it’s about the feelz and intentionz!”

        I wish that some day people would catch on that the intention to rule your neighbors by force is not a “good” one.

  17. You can’t have a free nation and rigorous immigration enforcement. They are mutually exclusive.

    1. You really don’t help any of the causes you seem to support

      1. Would it be fair to say you see no difference between Cytotoxic and Sheldon Richman?

        1. No. Richman is solidly against the Israeli government and war, while Cychotoxic is rabidly pro-Israeli government and the biggest warmongering chickenhawk I’ve ever heard of. And Richman is heads and tails above Cytotoxic in terms of journalistic and argumentative ability, though this isn’t saying much considering it’s Cytotoxic.

      2. Agreed. He has no ability to convince people on any topic. He’s one of the worst debaters I’ve ever seen, and I wish he’d shut up even when I absolutely agree with his stances, because he gives even the most worthwhile positions and factions a bad reputation. If I were against libertarianism, I would hire Cytotoxic to argue in favor of it.

    2. You can’t have a free nation and rigorous immigration enforcement. They are mutually exclusive.

      Switzerland, the Prison of Europe!

  18. Dear conservaderps: can we just get to the part where you sheepishly admit the libertarians were right and you were hysterical ignorant mouth-breathing idiots? That’s going to happen in 10-15 years anywhere after you’ve fucked our freedoms and come to regret it. Why not just skip to the good part and do what your betters-us-tell you to?

  19. Large men carrying things in the past

    Jon Pall was a beautiful man. Way homo.

  20. Vargas’ inspirational story is pretty much out of the Hallmark Channel, but with more macho. I don’t like the immigration status quo, but even I am not stupid enough to die on this particular hill. Let him into the military already, and if he gets honorably discharged, get him citizenship.

    1. I also question why someone who came here when he was 5 should be punished for his parents’ illegal border crossing. It’s not like he broke the law – he was a 5 year old.

      1. Yeah, that too.

      2. I question why somebody with Mr. Vargas’s brains, ambition, accomplishments and connections couldn’t get naturalized if he wanted to.

        1. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the laws are fucked up. But that’s just a guess.

          1. Quite a few very ordinary people get naturalized somehow despite the fuckedupedness of the laws. What actually blocked this obviously intelligent, motivated and connected guy?

            1. I have no idea.

            2. You don’t need to be a naturalized to enlist, just be a permanent resident (green card holder). Under the current law, you can then apply for citizenship after serving on active duty for one day or longer.

      3. “I also question why someone who came here when he was 5 should be punished for his parents’ illegal border crossing.”

        Why should anyone being born anywhere be “punished” for where their parents chose to have them born?

        Everyone, everywhere should be granted US citizenship. And welfare. And medicaid. And the right to vote in US elections.

        1. “Everyone, everywhere should be granted US citizenship. And welfare. And medicaid. And the right to vote in US elections.”

          Yes, this is totally what Irish is arguing for.

          1. If someone is here 20 years after being brought in by his parents, you can quote me as believing he should be allowed to have US citizenship. And the right to vote in US elections. Of course, I think his parents should never be allowed to vote in American elections and should never be allowed to get any sort of American benefit because they came here illegally, but the anti-immigrant forces are intent on strawmanning my arguments, so…

            1. If someone is here 20 years after being brought in by his parents, you can quote me as believing he should be allowed to have US citizenship.

              Note the passive voice here. No one made any choices in opposition to law, they just were here. The dude had the time and money (no welfare for certain!) to obtain a law degree but not legal status?

              This guy is simply an entrepreneur! He is going to start a business. A business suing people for government payments.

            2. That may not be your argument, but you are mistaken if you believe it is not what many are calling for.

              The whole thing starts from the fairly unobjectionable premise ‘it’s not fair to punish a person for something his or her parents did’

              Then it moves to ‘Of course, we can hardly separate families. If we are going to let the child stay, then the parents must stay, too.’

              Then it moves to ‘Of course, we can hardly punish a child just because his parents brought him here illegally. If the parents are not able to support the child, compassion demands that we provide the family with the same assistance we do any other family’

              And goes from there to ‘This family has been in this country for 20 years now. It’s not fair to keep treating them all as second-class citizens. They deserve a full voice in our elections and system of government!’

  21. You see, I’d been doing liberalism wrong. You’re not supposed to feel personally responsible for injustice, you’re supposed to feel smug that you’re aware of the injustice and conservatives aren’t. It’s meant to make you feel better.

    Yes, yes, of course. Liberals are superior, because [insert rambling, incoherent nonsense].
    GO TEAMZ!

    1. It’s meant to make you feel better.”

      And we all know that as long as liberals feel better that is all that matters.

    2. Liberals are superior because they feel the right feelings for the right people.

      1. “Liberals are superior because…”

        They’re eager to use violence to impose their superior morality on their immoral inferiors.

  22. If we allow our armies to be usurped from within by furriners, they’ll enslave us!

    FIFTH COLUMNISTS ARE IN OUR MIDST!

  23. “The best thing for the home country is to end the political corruption there and so we shouldn’t take the very people, the high skilled Ph.D.s and masters out of the home country, they need to stay there, take care of the political corruption and dictators back home, so we can all trade and get rich together.”

    The best thing we can do to ‘get rich together’ is force talented, capable people to stay in third-world countries where they have no opportunity for success and may be murdered by dictators for speaking out against the regime.

    Solid logic, David Brat.

    1. That actually makes a degree of sense. IF all talented immigrants could stay in their home countries and make them better, everyone would be better off. When they come here it is a drain on their home countries. But they come here because their home countries suck.

      In an ideal world, the sucky countries would figure out that they need more economic freedom in order to improve. Unfortunately, that rarely seems to happen.

      And also unfortunately, it’s a basic principle that if everyone goes to where it’s better, that will change and may well ruin the better place. When too many people move to the cool affordable bohemian neighborhood, it’s no longer the cool affordable bohemian neighborhood. When too many people visit the untouched wilderness, it’s no longer the untouched wilderness. Etc.

      In part this is because people are not mere economic units, but bring some part of their culture with them. They may be escaping a sucky culture, but they also often bring aspects of that sucky culture with them. If there a few immigrants, and/or their new home has a culture of assimilation, that’s not much of a problem. However, if there are too many, and they come to a bankrupt welfare state that worships “multiculturalism,” it will divide and help bankrupt the culture they are added to. Which is what we see in the US: Hispanic ghettos, Hispanic gangs, increasing support for stupid Democrat policies, etc.

      1. I have a few disagreements here:

        IF all talented immigrants could stay in their home countries and make them better, everyone would be better off.

        Sure, but talented people are often stopped from improving themselves or their countries by a governmental system that makes success impossible. No matter how talented you are, you’re fucked if you live in Cuba.

        As for your last paragraph, that’s a problem with uneducated immigration. The issue with Brat is that he’s talking about educated immigration. The educated immigrants don’t bring ‘sucky culture’ to America because they tend to be from a cultural cohort in their homeland that actually melds very well with the upper-middle classes here. What ‘sucky culture’ do well-educated Indian doctors bring to the United States? How about foreign tech workers? Hispanic ghettos are not caused because Mexico’s best neurosurgeons are coming here, they’re caused because the neurosurgeons stay in Mexico City and the people who move to America are poor, uneducated rural workers who are fleeing cartel infested wastelands.

        Your argument therefore makes sense if you’re talking about poor immigrants, but Brat is talking about well-educated, high skill immigrants, which is a different group entirely.

        1. Yes, your first point is what I was saying: their home countries are too sucky to allow that to happen.

          Your second point is partly true, and I used to be more open to it. However, it’s become clear that with H-1B visas, it’s not a matter of “We can’t find Americans to do these jobs,” but “The foreigners are cheaper and easier to exploit.” E.g. Disney firing IT staff and having them train H-1Bs as cheaper replacements.

      2. “and they come to a bankrupt welfare state that worships “multiculturalism,””

        There, I think, is the problem, a problem we certainly didn’t have in, say, the 19th century – though immigrants weren’t uniformly colorful, hard-working, wisecracking nice guys then or now, they or their descendants managed to contribute to this country.

        If we decide not to create a client class of future Democratic voters, we can get worthwhile immigrants.

        As for the brain-drain, how about this: Let countries make their societies and economies good enough that the smart people won’t *want* to emigrate!

        1. Think – if the smart and resourceful people are fleeing a country, maybe that country doesn’t exactly have an environment which welcomes the contributions of smart and successful people, so calls to “stay in your country and improve it” will ring hollow.

          1. Yes, that’s what I was trying to say.

          2. I agree with Papaya’s sentiment but feel that the issue is too complex to be looked at the way he describes. Think of all the bureaucratic BS that hampers people here, in the land of opportunity. Now multiply that by a thousand, throw in a healthy dose of corruption/graft/nepotism, in some countries add the risk of getting “disappeared” by king’s men, and I’d probably choose flee the country instead of staying to try and change it. I say “probably” because I’m single so maybe I would stay and resist but if I had a family I would not want to risk their lives.

            Even in a resource-rich and industrialized country like Mexico, look at all the corruption just connected to the cartels. The cartels themselves will even come snatch your kids away for refusing to work for them. It’s hard for me not to feel for these people who are caught in such a predicament.

            Isis herself used to greet many immigrants to this country with the inscription:
            “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
            With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
            Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
            The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
            Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
            I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

            1. Of course people come here for opportunity, but half the world can’t move here. We don’t have the money (or in California, the water). And there’s the international version of the well-known “Californication” phenomenon: just because people are escaping shitty economies is no quarantee that they won’t vote for the same shit in their new home. E.g.: Nevada, Colorado, Vermont, etc.

              1. And there’s the international version of the well-known “Californication” phenomenon: just because people are escaping shitty economies is no quarantee that they won’t vote for the same shit in their new home.

                Well, the worst states in the country in terms of fucking us by forcing their leftism on the rest of the nation (other than California) are lily white enclaves in the northeast. I’m not entirely disagreeing, but there are a lot of very left-wing areas where the problem isn’t leftist poor immigrants.

                1. Sure, I’m not saying that immigrants are creating left-wing areas, but they are reinforcing the populations of left-wing cities and states, and while immigrants are rarely full-blown leftists, they do tend to vote for Democrats.

                  1. they do tend to vote for Democrats.

                    Huh. I wonder why that could be?

                    1. Because they’re Democrats pander to racial minorities and promise free stuff, just like the governments of the shithole countries they came from.

                    2. Yeah…has NOTHING to do with the stupid party treating them like shit.

                      Only the stupid party could find a way to get conservative people to vote progressive. Fucking morons!

                  2. “they do tend to vote for Democrats.”

                    Given the rhetoric of the right, suggesting that latinos are some kind of communist infiltration intended to “undermine American values”, WTF would you expect?

                    Its absurd to assume that religious, economically aspirational people with strong family values are somehow permanently wedded to the Democratic party. .

                    There are plenty of polls showing hispanic voters favor the democratic party, ….mainly because they don’t treat them like shit quite as much

                    As someone @ Salon pointed out = that appeal is only skin-deep, and that actual immigrant voters tend to be more-conservative than non-voters

                    ” “….immigrants who stand on the right end of the continuum have a more than 90 percent chance of engaging in American elections, regardless of how long they have lived in their host country.”

                    In contrast, he reports, left-leaning immigrants only gradually move into the American political process, and never at the rate of their conservative counterparts. Approximately 52 percent of that sample expressed the intention to vote after living in this country for 10 years. After 17 years, that number increased to 66 percent?still far below the interest level of conservatives.””

                    1. Yeah, there’s extreme rhetoric on the right, just as there is on the left on various topics. But “Speak nicely of the people who are sucking up tax dollars and helping your political opponents” is not really an ideal recommendation.

                      One huge problem is that many are simply afraid to talk about it, lest they be “racist.” But who ever voted to import tens of millions of poor Latin Americans, and become close to an officially bilingual country? How is it in the interests of liberty for the US to become more like Mexico and the rest of Latin America? A few million here and there, over years, would not be much of an issue. But we’ve changed the character of the country in a lifetime, and there’s an awful lot that’s not for the better. I like Mexican food as much as the next guy, and it’s great for homeowners who want cheap landscaping and home repair, but rents are up, traffic is worse, we have a drought, and all public services spend vast sums dealing with immigrants and their kids. In LA alone it’s nearing a billion dollars a year.

                      I never said: “permanently wedded,” but so what? A tendency now is enough to swing many elections, and has been. Goodbye Bob Dornan, hello Loretta Sanchez. Was that a win for liberty? I don’t think so. And the billions a year in extra government services isn’t a win for liberty, either.

                    2. “we’ve changed the character of the country in a lifetime, “

                      nonsense.

                      You’re suffering from California-Myopia.

                      This shit about how the US is going to “made like Mexico” by…what?…. reforming our current, broken-as-fuck system? is idiotic.

                      The actual consequences of voting for candidates who promise “moar enforcement”! and not to tamper with the regime until we reach some mythical-secured-border?

                      Will simply mean billions in spending on meaningless shit that won’t do anything to stop illegal immigration. Every 4 years they’ll come back insisting that this time they’ll *really* go after those mexicans… and you’ll vote for the idiots again, and they will maintain that status quo. Maybe they’ll build some bits of wall, like they tried before. what they won’t do is actually change the system in any material way.

                      This whole “open borders” nonsense is a red-herring. there’s never going to be 100% open borders just like we’re never going to have a hermetically sealed border. What we need is to change the policy such that government isn’t spending gazillions on shit just to appease the panic mongers.

        2. 19th century immigration was different in a number of ways. Much was from parts of Europe that were more in line with American values. There wasn’t an overwhelming amount from one country or culture or language. And of course, we weren’t a bankrupt welfare state.

          Even then we had plenty of problems: we got the Mafia, violent anarchists and socialists, and the rise of the Klan and other negative reactions. It’s no surprise that the U.S. did fine once we paused mass immigration from the ’20s to the ’60s. (Yes, there was the Depression and various wars, but those weren’t caused or made worse by lack of immigration.)

          1. Good points.

            And I agree with you 100% on the welfare state issue. Perhaps supporting unrestricted immigration might bring the edifice crashing down faster than would happen otherwise? Maybe actually kill some of these programs? Since we won’t have the funding? Idk.

            1. Unfortunately, leftists will bankrupt a government and then double down: see Greece.

      3. “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” – Yogi Berra

  24. http://cafehayek.com/2015/05/q…..-1360.html

    What allowed the United States to pull ahead of Great Britain in total output was the huge increase in the stock of both capital and labor. The capital came from domestic savings but also from abroad in the form of foreign investment, much of it from Britain itself. The steady inflow of capital from abroad was the main reason why the United States ran almost continuous trade deficits through the second half of the 19th century. Much of the expansion of labor came from the rest of Europe in the form of millions of immigrants, the “huddled masses” who arrived at Ellis Island from Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Poland, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. In the half-century from 1865 through 1914, the United States more or less welcomed 26.4 million legal immigrants. As a share of the U.S. population, the immigration rate during that period was more than double the rate today.

    Consider the irony. The same era that Pat Buchanan and other trade skeptics praise for its high tariffs was also an era of persistent trade deficits and mass immigration! And all the evidence shows that it was those trade deficits and the inflow of foreign capital they accommodated combined with large-scale immigration that did the most to transform America into an industrial giant, not self-damaging tariffs.

    1. Immigration is a good thing; we should greatly expand it. That doesn’t mean that encouraging illegal migration into the country is a good thing.

      A further difference between the 19th century and now is that we’re now a massive welfare state where access to public institutions is of enormous value. Vargas himself graduated from a publicly financed US laws school (CUNY). How many people around the world do you think would love to have that opportunity? Why should it be given to people who break our laws, as opposed to those who respect them?

      What do you think is going to happen to illegal migration (and enforcement) if the message we send out is: “if you make it into the country and go undetected for a few years, you can get free education and a great career”?

      1. It’s always possible to have too much of a good thing.

  25. Happy Memorial Day – and here is the song Congress *ought* to have adopted as the national anthem:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk

    1. The fact that you did not post a link to Freebird is a clear indication of your youth.

  26. Time for the regularly-scheduled freakout at the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress:

    “”What do the current governments of Canada, France, and Australia have in common?” reads the multiple choice question.

    “Of the four potential answers, “They have leaders with absolute power” was selected by 23 per cent of respondents.

    “Another 10 per cent of students said: “They are controlled by the military,” while 12 per cent chose “They discourage participation by citizens in public affairs.””

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/trendin…..-1.3082239

    So, 35% of respondents are aware of what’s going on.

    1. “They discourage participation by citizens in public affairs” seems like a completely subjective question. I think you could very easily argue a lot of modern ‘democracies’ effectively ‘discourage’ participation through a variety of mechanisms.

      That’s a pretty poorly worded question.

  27. Obama heralds first US Memorial Day without ground war in 14 years
    – Reuters

    I used to read Reuters because i thought as a british org they managed to provide what seemed like a more-objective perspective on international events and US news than, say, the NYT.

    These days I seem see constant left-leaning bias; in their editorials, to be sure…. but even in the most banal reportage.

    No “ground” war?

    Really? We have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, and they are still getting shot at, and we’re still shooting at the Taliban.

    We’re still bombing a variety of people in Syria.

    We spent a good portion of April and May contributing to the bombing of Yemen, which you can be damn sure wouldn’t be happening without our direct influence.

    No “Ground” war? Are we supposed to assume that *bombing people isn’t war*?

    While I know better than to expect criticism of a president on Memorial day, what I find appalling is that they’d write a fluff job about the guy, characterizing him as the “Bringer of Peace” and presiding over a less-prone-to-conflict Administration. They cite his 2008 criticism of the war in Iraq as some kind of material evidence that he’s somehow less martially inclined, never mind that 70% of US casualties in Afghanistan happened under his authority.

    1. *Someone* hasn’t been clapping hard enough.

    2. Well he declared the ground war was over and who the hell are you to disagree with him you racist!!!

      /sarcasm

    3. What confounds me in their characterization of Obama as the Bringer of Peace is the absence of any acknowledgment that O expanded the war in Afghanistan in 2009/10, engaging in a troop surge because it was “the right war”. Bush deserves all the criticism he gets for Iraq, but he kept the footprint there small because of the nature of the conflict and the region. Bonehead that O is, he firmed up his “strong on defense” bon fides by claiming Afghanistan was the right war and surged troops only to lose regardless. Obama is opportunistic knucklehead.

      1. “O expanded the war in Afghanistan in 2009/10, engaging in a troop surge because it was “the right war”.”

        Indeed. Which makes his sweeping of it under the rug so much the more disgraceful. He seemed to be convinced that there was some achievable goal in 2009 which was worth a few thousand lives. Now he’d be hard pressed to even discuss what the original goals were.

      2. Bonehead that O is, he firmed up his “strong on defense” bon fides by claiming Afghanistan was the right war and surged troops only to lose regardless.

        It’s an article of faith among leftwing pseudo intellectuals that OBL rise was America’s fault because we failed to dump money into rebuilding Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out.

    4. Dr. Zoidberg: Is it possible that all this slavery and oppression is smutzing up our freedom lesson?

      Ambassador Moivin: Ah, take a pill, Zoidberg!

    1. That’s easy to game. Ron Paul dominated all polls online because the Paulites were hardcore and more organized online than other people.

      I think it wouldn’t be difficult for ISIS to hear about that and have every person sympathetic to their cause go and vote ‘yes.’ I hate Islam and think it’s the worst religion on Earth, but most Muslims despise ISIS (including other fundamentalists who just disagree on doctrine) and an easily manipulated online poll shouldn’t be taken as evidence of anything.

        1. It’s not wildly out of line with lots of other polls.

          Reading those links, I see things like “20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.”

          You don’t think 20% of Muslims expressing something so nebulous as ‘sympathy’ is out of line with 81% supporting the mass slaughter of other Muslims by ISIS? The second number is 61% higher regarding an atrocity that’s actually worse and you’re seriously trying to tell me it’s ‘not wildly out of line’ with other opinion polling?

          1. You’re kind of mixing apples and oranges here. The poll I posted was about supporting ISIS, which is a different question from supporting a terror attack. One could very well answer that question with a “Yes, I support them, but I think they go too far sometimes.” Thus, support for ISIS without endorsing all their actions.

            Look at poll results for support for sharia. The whole point of ISIS is to enforce sharia law, and about 81% of Pakistanis and Jordanians do. About 75% of Egyptians and Palestinians. 40% of British Muslims support sharia law. 72% of Indonesians do. 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria do. And ISIS might have 16% support in France and 7% in the UK, though those numbers do seem high.

            So to me, a poll in the Muslim world that shows support for ISIS in the range of support for sharia seems “not wildly out of line,” assuming the unreliability of inline polls. And if the poll overstates things by 100%, that’s still 40% support, which still destroys the “but radicals are only a small percent” argument.

            However, I’ll admit that some polls show some Muslim countries with only show 1-5% support for ISIS.

            1. “Look at poll results for support for sharia’

              sharia is basically “law” from the POV of people who live in Islamic societies.

              Saying they support sharia is basically saying they support having laws that are consistent with the koran. Which i think would be unsurprising coming from people who live in Islamic countries. “law and order” tends to poll well.

              Support for ISIS is specifically saying, “i support the violent overthrow of *OTHER* muslim countries and the murder of non-believers”

              Subtle difference there.

            2. Look at poll results for support for sharia. The whole point of ISIS is to enforce sharia law, and about 81% of Pakistanis and Jordanians do.

              Wrong. Different Muslims have different ideas about what Sharia means. First of all, your claim that 81% support ISIS is completely absurd because 13% of Muslims are Shia and there is no way Shia support ISIS because ISIS is a Sunni organization. So 87% is Sunni. That would mean 95% of all Sunni support ISIS. That’s a ridiculous number – no way it’s true. If it were true, Saudi Arabia would not currently be bombing ISIS. For that matter, Jordan is one of the most Sunni countries on Earth and ISIS burned one of their pilots alive. Do you really think Sunnis are pro-ISIS given that ISIS is murdering their citizens?

              1. I didn’t claim “81% of Muslims support ISIS.” I said 81% of respondents to the poll did.

                I agree, largely, regarding Shiites, however, “Do you really think Sunnis are pro-ISIS given that ISIS is murdering their citizens?”: a lot of them are. Lots of Sunnis everywhere, including ones in IS, support IS. I’m not claiming it’s a majority position, but it’s far more than the “tiny fraction of all Muslims” that apologists claim.

    2. Apparently ISIS is a State of Peace.

      No Islam to see here, folks. Everyone move along.

    3. Ohhhhs nooooes! *shits pants*

      Who cares?

      What are they going to do, invade the US?

  28. I’m an immigrant and I’m pro-immigration. I think we should greatly expand skill-based immigration visas and give work permits to almost anybody who wants them. Of course, I also think that people should only receive welfare and other government benefits once they are citizens.

    I don’t see how opposing giving benefits or options to people who have entered the country illegally is “anti-immigration”; it is “anti-illegal-migration”. If there are a lot of options for people to legalize their status once in the country, then we encourage illegal migration, because what’s the worst that happens when you are found out? You just pick some option that legalizes you. And if you’re not found out, you do whatever you want, with a lot less hassles than legal immigrants or even citizens.

    1. Win Bear, picking skilled immigrants or allowing unskilled immigrants into the country erodes the ability of citizens to earn wages by loading up the labor supply with competitors. This practice is especially cruel to unskilled and poor US citizens (just the kind of idiocy the Democrats go for).

      It would be one thing if there were some sort of free-market equity between the donor countries and the US, but the idea is laughable. Free market competition requires the presence of a free market, not a confused mess of bad treaties, hordes of illegal poor, subsidy for businesses with influence, welfare entitlements, lawlessness on the part of the President, etc etc etc.

      1. Letting in unlimited numbers of people of any stripe only makes sense if there is unlimited opportunity in the things they can do. And only makes sense when there are reciprocal opportunities in the donor countries that benefit Americans.

        There isn’t anything wrong with protectionism for the purpose of creating and enforcing a functioning market. There never was.

        1. Nice. Advocating protectionism at a libertarian site.

          Where do you all come from?

          1. “I consider myself a libertarian, except i think the government should be able to intervene in pretty much any economic transaction if i think it has some generally-excusable purpose intending to ‘rectify’ some social problem i blame on ‘the market’.”

            Its just like being a Vegan who only eats cows and pigs and chickens, but none of those *other* animals.

            1. It’s only reasonable to eat a steak every week, because steak is damn delicious. But still a vegan.

              1. MJGreen|5.25.15 @ 11:28PM|#
                “It’s only reasonable to eat a steak every week, because steak is damn delicious. But still a vegan.”

                Remember the article on the woman who ‘quit shopping’ for a year to show that materialism was a sham, except for the remodeling she had done on her home during that year?
                I think it was the New Yorker, and it was reported without either sarc or self-awareness.

        2. Letting in unlimited numbers of people of any stripe only makes sense if there is unlimited opportunity in the things they can do.

          The opportunities are determined by people who want to hire them.

          And only makes sense when there are reciprocal opportunities in the donor countries that benefit Americans.And only makes sense when there are reciprocal opportunities in the donor countries that benefit Americans.

          That’s bullshit. The US economy would benefit from immigration even if Americans could emigrate. But, in fact, Americans can pretty easily emigrate to places like Europe. In fact, European and other countries are always debating two things: (1) how to become more attractive to immigrants, because they really need the workers, and (2) how to punish people who emigrate.

          There isn’t anything wrong with protectionism for the purpose of creating and enforcing a functioning market. There never was.

          I hope you don’t tell others you are a “libertarian”, because you are a typical progressive moron.

      2. Win Bear, picking skilled immigrants or allowing unskilled immigrants into the country erodes the ability of citizens to earn wages by loading up the labor supply with competitors.

        Nonsense. If I hadn’t immigrated, I would have been doing the same work for the same company where I was born, at half the salary. No American would have gotten my job. Americans have no special dibs on any jobs; if the job can be done more cheaply elsewhere, it will be done there. You cannot protect American workers from competitors abroad.

    2. “I don’t see how opposing giving benefits or options to people who have entered the country illegally is “anti-immigration””

      But, but, RACISM!

  29. What about the imploding heads of Libertarians unwilling to be crushed by the rising population pressure of unlimited immigration?

    America ran out of frontier well before its population reached 100 million– open borders could add a zero and land us in the same crowded demographic boat as Bangladesh or the Netherlands.

    1. Yes! This is the problem with immigration here in the U.S. We’re out of space!

      /sarc

    2. OMG THE COUNTRY WILL TIP OVER

    3. “[…]open borders could add a zero and land us in the same crowded demographic boat as Bangladesh or the Netherlands.”

      Or, heaven forbid, MONACO!
      (BTW, I like the choice of Bangladesh and Holland)

    4. America ran out of frontier well before its population reached 100 million– open borders could add a zero and land us in the same crowded demographic boat as Bangladesh or the Netherlands.

      Yeah, our population density is so high, where could be possibly put them all!

      Incidentally, the district of Bangladesh with the highest population density is 168,000 people per square kilometer, the district of New York City with the highest population density is about 42,000 people per square kilometer. So New York City, the densest city in America, is about 1/4th as dense as Bangladesh and you’re seriously worried the entire country is going to become that dense? We’d need about 10 billion more people in this country to have the national population density of Bangladesh.

    5. Derp. At Bangladeshi levels of density, the population of the US would be over 10 billion.

      1. Or what Irish said.

  30. Ill just leave this OT post right here..

    1. Cripes, both she and her son look like CGI creations. Uncanny Valley alert!

      1. I think I saw that kid in BioShock.

  31. “What’s going on is the decline of Western Civilization at the highest level,” Brat said. (Not just any level?the highest level.) “I think everybody knows their old Roman history; part of the reason Rome fell was because they started hiring the barbarians in, otherwise known as the Germans at the time, to be troops in their own army, and that led to their eventual downfall.”

    Extra irony points given Brat is a German surname.

    1. Brat is Russian for brother. The Russian people bore the brunt of unfettered immigration years ago, and still feel an uneasy stigma burned deep into their psyche for it to this day. It’s like the Hun invasion all over again. This is something you can’t possibly understand…

      1. “[…]The Russian people bore the brunt of unfettered immigration years ago, and still feel an uneasy stigma burned deep into their psyche for it to this day.[…]”

        The Russian people did nothing of the sort; Russia ‘absorbed’ surrounding ethnic groups/nations while purposely starving and forcibly relocating quite a few of the residents found in those locations. In no case was there a mass migration *into* Russia, unless you presume the Jewish migration into the pales counts as ‘unfettered immigration’.
        What you post is bullshit.

        1. Well, first off Sevo, my post was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.. But kudos for signaling so loud and clear… I take comfort in it, and the moral clarity of your position.
          Second off, the Hun invasion had absolutely nothing to do with Russia ‘absorbing’ other ethnicities, nor the Soviets marching them off to Siberia in order to claim Ukraine for themselves (which is what I assume you are referring to).
          Third off, Jewish immigration wasn’t ever mentioned in my post. The Huns were pagans, if I recall correctly.. They never met Moses, nor did they claim Judea as their promised land.. correct me if I’m wrong.

          1. Pathogen|5.25.15 @ 11:50PM|#
            “Well, first off Sevo, my post was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.”

            Either your sarc signal or my sarc detector needs work.

  32. Immigration hard-liners, including Brat, insist their objections have nothing to do with immigration per se; they object only to the unlawful kind.

    In the sense that urban democrats are not anti-gun per se; they object only to the unlawful kind. It’s just that since they want to make ALL guns unlawful, it ends up being a distinction in search of a difference.

    1. Not at all. I think every adult, law abiding citizen should be able to own as many guns as he wants to. That doesn’t mean I think the same should automatically be true for prisoners, people on probation, or non-citizens.

  33. “immigration hawks should be willing to admit far more?5 million or even 10 million a year, say. If they are not, then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is just a smokescreen.”

    No, it’s the difference between legal and illegal.

    Admitting large numbers of foreigners is a subsidy for the businesses that will hire them – a big fat government handout. That was Milton Friedman’s view, incidentally.

    The free market does not mean exposing select groups to international market competition for the benefit of those who have crony connections with Congress. .

    1. “Admitting large numbers of foreigners is a subsidy for the businesses that will hire them – a big fat government handout.”

      “Not Intervening” to prevent a company from hiring who they want = Subsidy… if you’re are retarded leftist for whom Not-Taking is Giving

      “That was Milton Friedman’s view, incidentally.

      No it wasn’t, technically

      he seemed to have reservations about ‘no controls’ of immigration and its incompatibility with the welfare state

      This says next to nothing regarding companies that are trying to get the employees with the skills they need at the price they want to pay.

      Besides, said company can always move the jobs to where the labor is, which is why so many companies outsource.

      You don’t seem to have the first clue what the “free market” means or doesn’t mean.

      1. G, I looked at that and passed for some more target-rich comments, but now that I look back, I think this is a real tell:
        “No, it’s the difference between legal and illegal.”
        Sniff-tulpa-sniff.
        Maybe not tulpa, but the same sort of bent thinking.

      2. Friedman’s argument for the benefits of illegal immigration is rooted in the idea that illegal migrants are not beneficiaries of the welfare state; that is, they have to bring into the country virtues and skills that a libertarian values: self-reliance, ability to earn a living, etc.

        That’s a nice theory, but it doesn’t reflect reality. First, progressives figured this out, which is why they are extending more and more government benefits to illegals. Many illegals also receive government benefits legally for their US-born children. In addition, once you are in the country illegally, there is really little downside to applying for US government benefits illegally too; in fact, it may actually help in maintaining the appearance of being a US citizen. Legal immigrants, on the other hand, have to follow all the rules scrupulously or risk serious consequences, and since legal immigrants are in all the databases (and even fingerprinted!), they are easy to keep track of.

        Note that Vargas, for example, attended a public university and was paid by public funds.

        Even getting citizenship can be easier for illegals. I am a naturalized citizen. Turns out that if I had been an illegal immigrant, I would have gotten my citizenship a lot faster and cheaper under the amnesty program. But that program was only available to people who could prove that they had been in the country illegally. Talk about a perverse set of incentives.

    2. Admitting large numbers of foreigners is a subsidy for the businesses that will hire them – a big fat government handout. That was Milton Friedman’s view, incidentally.

      That’s bullshit. Admitting immigrants isn’t a “government handout”; it doesn’t cost government or tax payers anything.

      Friedman objected to admitting immigrants into a welfare state; unlimited immigration into a welfare state is indeed a problem, but the problem is with the welfare state, not the immigration, and it’s still no “subsidy” to business.

  34. Wah!

    The Republicans are The Devil! They’re not for Open Borders!

    Wah!

    1. I’m not for “open borders” either.

      I still think this guy is a fucking idiot.

      I also think a Border Wall is the apex of stupidity

      I simply think we need to fix our immigration system.

      This *may* result in less immigration. It may result in more. I’d prefer the latter, not for ideological libertarian reasons, but long term economic ones.

      regardless, the GOP is fucking stupid about immigration overall. call it whining, but i’d rather they won elections rather than pander to idiots who suffer from Mexicanphobia.

  35. As much as open borders enthusiasts would like to deny it. legality matters.
    It helps a nation to know who is in it. Nations other than the US, Mexico and the Philippines for instance, find it helps to keep jobs in their country for their citizens when they monitor foreigners in their country and refuse to give them benefits of citizenship. Other nations have strict requirements for people entering the country legally and neither tolerate foreigners who are there without permission.
    US citizens are expected to obey ALL the laws, not just the ones they like. We owe nothing to foreigners who break our laws, or to their children. They made their own conscious choices and their kids were all for the idea of going where their parents went. If their choice to ignore the laws of a sovereign country didn’t go well for them and their families, they realistically have nobody to blame but themselves. In the Americas, their culture of corruption is the number one reason people flee their nations to come to the US.
    We don’t need the corruption here. Giving people a pass on breaking laws is the start of bringing it. We don’t do it for citizens and we should not do it for foreigners. If they truly want to be Americans, that starts by obeying the laws.

    1. I’ll ignore the hand-waving and focus on what I presume is the crux of your argument:
      “[…]In the Americas, their culture of corruption is the number one reason people flee their nations to come to the US.[…]”
      So they are fleeing it, but are somehow infected by it? I think you need to try that one more time.

      “[…]Giving people a pass on breaking laws is the start of bringing it.[…]”
      How about, oh, smoking a bit of weed? Will that turn l’tarians into vectors of corruption?
      Do I smell a tulpa sock here?

    2. Shut up.

    3. “US citizens are expected to obey ALL the laws, not just the ones they like”

      No, just the ones I like.

  36. I’m certainly not against immigration but I am against illegal immigration, especially in a forced upon welfare state.
    The wall will work.
    Secondly this is all for the corrupt government, especially the Democrats. They get voters and an invented crisis to “solve”. The Republicans get all they want in this as well.

    This situation certainly has its parrallels with Late Western Rome, and there’s really only one way to stop it.

    1. “The wall will work.”

      Cite missing.

      1. The STASI managed to keep lazy, feckless West Germans out their hard won workers paradise for ~29 years with their wall…

        1. And it was amazingly successful at doing so! Hardly any westerners got through the defenses to settle in the prosperous east AND STEAL THOSE JOBS!

          1. why do you hate the hardworking people at Trabant?

      2. This is clearly stupid.

    2. Hmmm. From a Canadian email address??? Are you trying to keep us out???

  37. Drone Crashes, Hits 2 People During Parade

    No charges will be filed. Police Chief Bob Picariello told WBZ no permits are required to fly the drone.

    Hmm. How about requiring a permit to use a drone to injure people?

    *** bites lip ***

    1. Hmm. How about those injured sue for the damages?
      Or do you presume flying something requires a permit?

      1. No damages here. It’s like a guy getting hit in the leg with a tennis ball.

        1. So Rich hopes we regulate tossed tennis balls?
          I was thinking of paper airplanes: “Are you trying to put your eye out?!”.

          1. I have a drone that weighs maybe 3 lbs with battery. No eyes put out yet.

  38. My understanding of the current predicament is that there is a bipartisan group who want to increase legal immigration, including so called hard right Republicans like Ted Cruz (who just hates illegal immigrants, he can’t hate all immigrants being that he is Canadian). Unfortunately, there is also a bipartisan group who want nothing of the sort (including a lot of Democrats who are beholden to the labor unions who see immigration as a threat to their chokehold… I mean fight for the rights of American workers. And the cynical side of me believes there are a lot more who don’t care if immigration is good or bad, they just see it as a wedge issue they can use to elicit votes, and thus will poison any attempt to actually solve any problems.
    So its perfectly possible for him to be for legal immigration but not be able to actually get anything done about it.

  39. Tulip is Botox? AND shriek?

    I am disappoint – but not surprised.

    I haz a vacation day tomorrow before back to the grind. Pick up the ZRX finally after two weeks of laying on of hands. Looks like the weather will hold for a good riding day!

    Also, fuck Tulip, and shriek, and Botox, ESPECIALLY if they’re one person.

    1. We have the what. The who and why are forthcoming.

      1. I have to admit to finding this hard to believe; the three are insufferable but each in identifiably different ways.
        If so, there is a talent there which was wasted on the H&R commentariate; that sort of MPD ought to have captured tons of money on prime-time broadcast TV.

  40. Also, Bryan Cranston looks weird in “GOJIRRA!” I’m so used to seeing him bald, the hair throws me….

  41. Vargas needs to go to Mexico and make it a better place to live. He doesn’t belong here no matter how much education, health care, food, and housing his family stole for him.

  42. Busy day ahead–let me check, the usual crew are pretending that this isn’t entirely about fear of polluting our precious white gene pool? They’re either using code language about a respect for the rule of law or peddling the story that immigrants are a drain on our welfare state despite being repeatedly informed that this is a lie? And is anyone whining about not being able to have his opinion because someone might call him racist, despite the fact that all his arguments are based on bullshit and his pattern of commenting strongly suggests that his no. 1 concern is an increased amount of melanin between the borders of the US?

    1. Every non-white group openly advocates for its race based interests: MECHA, La Raza, NAACP, assorted Black Student Unions, and etc. So why is it a thoughtcrime for whites to do the same? The reality is that white people are openly and legally discriminated against in the USA:
      * Affirmative action;
      * Minorities-only contracts;
      * Denial of equal protection under hatecrime laws;
      * Black, Chicano/a, etc., studies programs on campus with no equivalent white departments;
      * The growing demonization of white people as a privileged class, whose property can be appropriated via “reparations” for slavery;
      * And the usual hypocrisy where if any white person stands up for their ethnic interests, they are screamed down as a “racist” while “people of color” openly advocate for their race-based interests.

      Or perhaps Tony thinks that white people do not have First Amendment rights?

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  44. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  45. It’s simple… If you want to be a part of this country, follow it’s laws. First, and most important, become a citizen to “qualify” as one of the “We the people…” and EARN the benefits of it’s protections.

  46. Particularly at a time when service members are being RIF’d, and LEGAL immigrants are being told that there is no room for them in a downsized military, opening up military service for ILLEGAL ALIENS who would have difficulty passing a background check (they do require such things to get security clearances still), is a bit of a stretch.
    This Vet votes NO!

  47. Now the criminal invader wants additional benefits from the crimes of his parents?

    Shoot them at the border.

    Give those here 6 months to clear out or face a mandatory 2 years in an Arizona tent prison run by Sheriff Arpaio and loss of all property.

    Fine any business that employs a criminal alien, or rents them a place to live, $1000 per day.

    Clean up the mess – then decide what to do. But do NOT reward criminals.

  48. All in all I do not understand how immigration is beneficial to the people of America who reside here. Sure it helps the world but not middle class Americans. The Gini coefficient is at.45, up from.35 in 1960. It measures income disparity. Japan and Germany are still at a middle class friendly.35. Productivity increased 98% from 1960 to 1973, wages increased 98%. Good, makes sense. Its only fair. From 1973 to 2010 productivity increased 84%, wages increased 4%. That seems unfair and does not make sense? No. Why? Immigration ‘reform’ in 1965 and 1986, brought in many many low wage workers. H1-B workers lowered the wage scale for American grads. The law of supply(more lower paid workers) lowers the demand(wages) and that is the iron law of economics. Your elite leaders do not care about you, the American worker. They think globalization is good(perhaps it is good for their stock portfolio but not for the regular salaried and hourly American workers).
    Good luck kids with the next generation, you are gonna need it.

  49. Now the criminal invader wants additional benefits from the crimes of his parents?

    Shoot them at the border.

    Give those here 6 months to clear out or face a mandatory 2 years in an Arizona tent prison run by Sheriff Arpaio and loss of all property.

    Fine any business that employs a criminal alien, or rents them a place to live, $1000 per day.

    Clean up the mess – then decide what to do. But do NOT reward criminals.

  50. Now the criminal invader wants additional benefits from the crimes of his parents?

    Shoot them at the border.

    Give those here 6 months to clear out or face a mandatory 2 years in an Arizona tent prison run by Sheriff Arpaio and loss of all property.

    Fine any business that employs a criminal alien, or rents them a place to live, $1000 per day.

    Clean up the mess – then decide what to do. But do NOT reward criminals.

  51. Can’t we allow immigrants who add to our culture stay or become citizens. Can’t we allow foreign students from colleges stay here and add to the creative strength of business? Send the poor, the hungery and down trodden back to where they can be first class citizens. Who are we to be looking out for ? Us, I would hope.

  52. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  53. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. The first should be encouraged, the later discouraged. The world is full of nation states. There is no trend toward dissolving these states and the borders. There is a limit on just how many people our country can absorb. A sudden influx of 100 million people, for example, would stress our resources as all would agree. How many can we absorb? We don’t know but it is highly possible we already admit more legal immigrants than we can assimilate. The U.S. has been extremely generous to the world’s emigrants. We have a responsibIlity to our citizens first.

  54. Uh, perhaps BECAUSE they’re undocumented?

  55. Hey, if you overstayed your visa, got smuggled along with some drugs, and we haven’t got a clue who you are or where you come from, we want YOU for the armed forces! If your official residence is in a country we’re about to invade, we need YOU! Wonderful idea. No reasonable person would be against it. Sure.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.