Immigration

Court Refuses to Let Obama's Immigration Executive Action Proceed

The only winner ultimately might be Hillary: Republicans and Latinos will both lose

|

Restrictionists will no doubt cheer the 2-1 ruling this afternoon by a panel of Louisiana judges in the 5th Circuit

Sleeping Hispanic Girl
Ray_from_LA / Foter / CC BY

Court refusing to remove the block on President Obama's executive action. The action, which would defer deportation proceedings against 5 million undocumented aliens who have deep community ties and have committed no crimes, was challenged on procedural grounds by 25 state attorney generals. (Please, spare me the bromides about how being in the country "illegally" in violation of a sham rule of law is a crime.) These states argued that because Obama bypassed Congress in creating this action, they did not get proper administrative notice to implement this policy. One 5th Circuit judge bought the claim and stayed the executive action and a three-judge panel has now refused to overrule his decision.

Reports the LA Times:

 At issue was Obama's proposed extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, created in 2012, and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Permanent Residents, or DAPA, which was scheduled to start in May.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, sitting in Brownsville, Texas, had granted the stay in response to the suit filed by the 26 states.

Conversely, 14 states, including California, had filed briefs arguing on behalf of Obama's executive actions.

Appearing on behalf of the federal government before the panel in New Orleans, Benjamin C. Mizer, acting assistant U.S. attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Division and a former Ohio solicitor general, failed to persuade them that states lacked standing to challenge the federal programs.

None of this was surprising, notes Joshua Breisblatt of the National Immigration Forum. "Overturning an injunction on an emergency basis as the DOJ asked for was a very high burden to meet and not many people expected that to happen," he maintains.

Still, this is undoubtedly a set back for the administration, which could ask the 5th Circuit for an en banc ruling. But that would likely go against it for the same reason that the three-judge ruling did: The administration has to meet a very high bar before a court that is sympathetic neither to it or the issue. It could go directly to the Supreme Court to get it to lift the stay, but there is no guarantee that the Supremeos would agree to hear the case. So it's unclear what its next steps will be.

But the important thing to remember is that none of this says anything one way or another about the constitutionality of the executive action itself (which, as I've argued before, is constitutional.)

It will take a while before the courts offer a final verdict on that question. But the problem for the administration —and the immigrants caught in the legal wrangling – is that time is running out. The president has only another year and a half in office and even if he finally wins in court, it might not leave him enough time to implement the program — which would make it a lot easier for a Republican president to undo it.

And that's why Latinos will come out in droves to vote for Hillary Clinton, which is why she has engaged in her epic flip-flop and decided that she is whole-heartedly for amnesty after being whole-heartedly against it.

In other words, even if restrictionists win the battle by running out the clock on the executive action, they might lose the war for the White House. Meanwhile, the fate of millions of Latinos will hang in the balance simply because they had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of the border – unlike the Americans whose McMansions they build, lawns they mow and children they raise.

There are few issues that brings out the craven cynicism of Democrats and sheer stupidity of Republicans quite the way immigration does.

NEXT: Are the Obama Administration's immigration reforms headed to the High Court?

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. (Please, spare me the bromides about how being in the country “illegally” in violation of a sham rule of law is a crime.)

    Please, spare me the piety and self-righteousness about how things like borders are arbitrary sham inventions that serve no purpose aside from othering brown skinned folk.

    1. It’s Shikha. She has no other setting but self-righteous.

      1. I know, right?

        Hey Shriek-a, disagreeing with immigration limits doesn’t require you to hold that smuggling people and sneaking over borders is OK. I personally believe in LEGAL unrestricted immigration (pipe dream but whatever), but I don’t condone lawbreaking.

        The border should be impenetrable from the outside. Everyone ought to be able to pass without restriction, but the crossing MUST be documented and recorded. It is absolutely necessary to know who is coming in (and what theyre bringing) even if you arent restricting passage of people or goods in any other way. There simply cannot be territorial defence or rule of law otherwise.

        And if you sneak in and get caught later, tough shit. You get the boot. Hopefully next time you’ll obey the immigration law (one of the few legit purviews of the FedGov).

        And so you don’t think im some kind of nativist: my family had to wait 8 years in line to get in. I’m a third-world immigrant, just like you (as I understand it). The difference is, I’m NOT a dissembling purveyor of identity politics masquerading as a libertarian.

        1. Shorter version: Wider gates, taller fences.

          Boom! Problem solved. Also, if we get wider gates the fences have to actually work, and you have to come in through the front door.

        2. No, you’re just a proponent of a total police state. You cannot have impenetrable borders without a total police state. You still can’t have them with it, but you can try.

          Everything you claim to want here requires a fucking army on the border. Well, guess what? We’ve already got the start of that. It’s called CBP or ICE or whatever the fuck they call it now, and it’s already totally out of control.

          So guess what? You can say anything you like, but if you want impenetrable borders and the marking down of every single person who crosses it, you want a total police state. Full stop. Have the balls to admit that at least.

          1. Is there not a middle ground between completely open borders and a police state enforcing said borders?

            1. I don’t know. Has one ever been found?

              The problem with the border issue is exactly the same as any other “war on something consensual”. See, there are people in the US that want to hire immigrants cheaply. And there are immigrants who want to come and work. So this is a “consensual crime” with our current border policy.

              What’s the track record with all the other myriad attempts to shut down “consensual crimes”? And what does it always lead to?

              1. We already have a large amount of immigrants who come here legally through the front door. I would argue if we allowed everyone who wants to come through the front door come through legally, we would have less need for a police state on the border.

                But I have to always defer to the point from Friedman: Open Borders or a Welfare state- pick one.

                1. That’s an easy choice.

                2. So we should compound one state failure – welfare – with another state failure – closed borders and ICE/INS.

                  Which “welfare” programs do undocumented workers have access to again?

              2. The laws need to be changed, and so far as I can see they won’t be unless some real attempt to deport those in the country illegally is made. Everybody with any leverage is just too goddamned comfortable with the status quo, which leaves the illegals open to various kinds of blackmail. Tell the immigration goons to stop searching for drugs (not their job) and work on what they are supposed to be doing. It ain’t nice, it ain’t fair, but if we want niceness and fairness to emerge, it probably has to be.

              3. Except there’s a lot of reason to think the wide gate would fundamentally change the equation. Most immigrants, I’m sure you understand, would prefer not to come into the United States in the dead of night in the gentle care of some cartel member. Most would rather walk into the country like civilized people. That means the remaining group will consist of people you really, really don’t want to be here. But, here’s the thing. Even more than you or I might really, really, not want those people here, the immigrants themselves will want them here even less. And in a situation where they have a lot less to fear from the authorities, you can actually rely on them to identify those people.

              4. See, there are people in the US that want to hire immigrants cheaply.

                This should read

                See, there are people in the US that want to hire immigrants without paying all the crap they have to pay to hire citizens.

                Americans cannot compete because of the laws set up by the exact same people who want open borders. Lefties love having second and third class residents to hire and abuse–the fact that they get to destroy the middle class while getting them is just icing on the cake.

            2. you either maintain information awareness of who / what is crossing into your territory, or you don’t.

              guarding the border is probably the single most fundamental and last to be removed role of a night watchman state.

              1. O Rly? So the night watchman state that I think we could all ascribe to the early United States had strictly controlled borders? Has there ever been border control like we see in the world today before, say, the 1930s?

                1. holy question-begging, Batman!

                  what the motherfuck does the historical immigration policy of the United States have to do with a theoretical Nightwatchman state?

                  1. Are…are you joking, or is this actually your response?

                    1. Oh, shit! Did you really just double-down?

                  2. Well, for quite some time the federal government, at least, was pretty close to being a night watchman type state.

                    And we managed, for quite some time, to have immigration policies and restrictions that didn’t spawn Total State authoritarianism.

                    1. we managed, for quite some time, to have immigration policies and restrictions that didn’t spawn Total State authoritarianism.

                      Actually, the tightening of US immigration law was part and parcel of the progressive movement and precedes the implementation of the rest of it.

                    2. … which makes it all the more incredible that Team Red goombahs just cant get enough of it.

        3. “but I don’t condone lawbreaking.”

          Let’s lock up those pot smokers and tax dodgers, amirite?

          1. Smoking drugs and dodging taxes is malum prohibitum

            Trespassing is malum in se

            you are a mendacious equivocator and a major-league dipshit

            1. Trespassing? If an illegal is on your property trespassing call the cops.

              Oh, you mean some collectivist idea of ‘trespassing’ on ‘our national property!’ Good grief.

              1. Fuck off, Tulpa. Just fuck off, you sockpuppeting piece of shit.

                1. You’re sadly hilarious Episarch.

                  1. Thanks, Tulpa. You’re pathetically hilarious. Is that better?

              2. fuck along, now

            2. Illegal immigration is malum prohibitum without question, which even closed-border nutjobs admit when they concede that legal immigration is perfectly fine, but those immigrants better follow the “rules” and “wait in that [never-moving] line” if they want entry into the country. Illegal immigration is literally punishing people for not following a procedural rule about HOW to enter the country and in no way is “trespassing,” unless you stretch the definition of trespassing beyond recognition.

              1. are you an idiot?

                Trespassing (to land) means entering without observing lawful protocol and/or receiving permission.

                Which is exactly what illegal immigrants do.

                And Trespass to land is one of the textbook examples of malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum.

                Not just my opinion, its centuries of common law

                1. Under common law, if you sue for trespass, usually the only real legal remedy is to eject the trespassers. You may receive “nominal damages,” usually a dollar, because the court considers there to be no real damages for the simple act of trespass. That means the opposite of your assertion: that trespass is actually not malum in se because to sue for damages there needs to be some real harm.

                  Immigration law is not based on the law of trespass, anyway. It’s based on the law of the sovereign. The king, if you will, claims the power to exclude people from his territory. This isn’t a right, like a property right of the individual, but a usurpation of a ruler or ruling power to control the private property of his subjects.

                  To claim otherwise is to say fundamentally that the government has the ultimate and final authority to decide who may enter our land, making the government for all intends and purposes the actual property owner.

                  You’re conflating trespassing, a protection under common law to provide individuals the full use and enjoyment of their property rights, with governmental interference in property rights. Illegal immigration and trespassing are only analogous in the broadest sense of the word, as in to be somewhere illegally, but in every other respect, including your own example of common law, you couldn’t be more wrong.

                  Let’s REJECT the socialization of property rights that is immigration law.

                  1. Intents*

                  2. the fuck do you think I want to happen to illegal aliens? For them to be put in prison or beaten or killed?

                    Have you read anything I wrote? All I want is for them to be, as you put it, ejected. And told to go through the front door.

                    It doesn’t matter what the nature of the property you’re entering is. If you are not the owner, you have no business sneaking in secretly. Doesnt matter if it’s my farm, my town, or my state.

                    I’ll let you in if you knock. Ergo, if you try to sneak in, my only conclusion is that you must mean me harm.

                    1. yes. all you want is the kings men to crash down doors, tear apart families and deport peaceful ppl.

        4. So all of this time, the US has been without territorial defense?

  2. Court Refuses to Let Obama’s Immigration Executive Action Proceed

    The only winner ultimately might be Hillary: Republicans and Latinos will both lose

    By the way, I presume we only talk about Latinos in conjunction with immigration reform because they’re the only ones desperate enought to stream INTO the U.S. illegally?

  3. “Latinos will come out in droves to vote for Hillary Clinton”

    I thought that was just GOP paranoid ramblings? You mean it’s true? Being facetious sort of.

    1. They voted for Obama in droves, increased their vote for him in ’12 even though he deported the shit out of them. Unfortunately, I think there are other complications than just immigration reform.

      1. For Hispanic voters, according to the national exit poll, 60% identified the economy as the most important issue (of four listed) facing the country today, virtually the same as the share (59%) of the general electorate that identified the economy as the nation’s most important issue. On the other three issues asked about, for Hispanic voters, the economy was followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).

        So unless I’m reading this wrong, ‘immigration’ didn’t even show up in the top four issues.

        Asked about immigration reform specifically:

        77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported. Among all voters, fewer than two-thirds (65%) said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 28% say they should be deported.

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-election/

        1. I would think there would be a little bit of “I followed the rules, why shouldn’t they” going on. I know that’s how I felt about the banking and mortgage bailouts.

          1. Yeah, I have that same conundrum: I jumped through all the damn hoops to get a green card and then get citizenship. But now we’re going to say to several million, “Don’t sweat it.”

            Yeah, I know, I’m a little childish but it does frustrate me. Plus, look at all the high-skilled people that follow the rules and leave the country and can’t get back.

          2. I think one of the glaring problems is we talk about ‘latino’ populations in a homogenous way. Are the Latinos here illegally engaging in the debate, voting for president etc., or are we talking about Latino populations that have been in this country longer than my family has been and have little connection to ‘immigration’ (legal or illegal) as a concept?

            Honestly, I don’t think the debate about immigration has been a major factor among Latinos in any election.

            Unless… UNLESS there actually is widespread voter fraud and tons of illegal immigrants are voting in these elections with the hope of being promised amnesty sometime down the road.

        2. 60% identified the economy as the most important issue, followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).

          And they STILL voted for Obama…

          1. Yep, deported, bad economy, fucked up healthcare and budget deficit through the wazoo, and need we even talk about Obama’s inept foreign policy?

            I guess we all got Obama good and hard.

            1. Somewhere, Mencken smiles.

          2. Why would a minority group that has the most to gain from a society free of an overbearing state vote for more statism? Probably the same reason most people do. Hey, there’s a gun on the table. If I don’t grab it, someone else will.

          3. Maybe this is news, but a lot of people who think gov’t is the most important issue of public policy favor interventionist policies; same w health care & foreign policy.

      2. even though he deported the shit out of them.

        Actually, he didn’t. I believe they started counting “turned away at the border” as “deported,” so the numbers look much higher than they are.

        1. They are still very high.

    2. Well, if you’re going to attack them constantly then they just might vote for your opponents.

      1. See my comment above. Attacking who? Attacking latinos that are here illegally? So, if a presidential hopeful attacks illegal immigrants, are those illegal immigrants going to vote for his opponent?

        1. No no, criticizing illegal immigrants (including such hateful attacks as referring to people who immigrate into the country illegally as ‘illegal immigrants’) is just like attacking every single Hispanic person in the country, because to conservatives all Mexicans look alike.

          The Democrats say so, so it must be true.

          1. Hey, don’t take my word for it, or the Dems, keep it up and see how many Hispanic votes your party gets.

            1. It’s a dishonest tactic, but I never said it didn’t work.

        2. First of all, ‘illegals’ often have relatives that are legal.

          But secondly, when attacking the ‘illegals’ seems to focus on a certain ethnic group, the legal members of that ethnic group aren’t going to take kindly to it either.

          1. First of all, ‘illegals’ often have relatives that are legal.

            So then why did they increase their vote for Obama? The data sorta proves that you can in fact court them and deport them.

            My only real nut in this argument is I think we’re overblowing the link between the Latino vote and immigration. And the PEW Center for all things Hispanic bears that out.

            1. We have evidence that GOP pols that don’t attack ‘illegals’ tend to do better with the groups of voters from the same ethnic groups as those ‘illegals.’

              1. Got a link to some of that evidence?

                1. It’s called losing less badly. More or less a strategy of trying to get rich by claiming capital losses on your taxes.

                  1. Losing less badly among any one group can mean winning the overall election.

          2. When 80% of the ‘illegals’ are from a certain ethnic group, it’s kind of hard to address the issue without appearing to ‘focus’ on them.

            1. That’s kind of my point.

  4. *Sees title, guesses author*

    This could very well be the derpiest thing I’ll read today

    *Reads article*

    Oh God, I think I hit the mother load!

    1. Right, when we say free minds and markets we don’t mean freedom of movement and association!

      1. And by “we” you mean you and the rest of your socks right?

        1. Look, dude, he assures us it isn’t him, even though he keeps fucking up and using the “voices” of his socks interchangeably. And we all know Tulpa isn’t a liar, right? Right?

          1. I know right, I mean three people commented on the same thread, they must be the same one person! lol.

            1. Why don’t we let everyone decide for themselves.

              1. I personally don’t see it. I wondered a while back if Bo was Tulpa’s masterpiece – there are certainly similarities – but I keep circling back to the idea that Tulpa can’t help himself. Tulpa ‘leans right,’ Bo ‘leans left.’ Just look above: Bo is defending immigrants and law breaking. Could Tulpa ever allow himself to argue that position, consistently, for over a year?

                1. MJ, there is evidence that is not appropriate to share in a public forum. But I assure you that it exists and many of us have seen it.

                  1. That tells me its time for another meet up.

                    Possibly over poutine.

                    1. I’m going on mini vacation to Palm Desert next weekend, but maybe the one after. Talk to the social secretary and see if we can get something together on short notice.

                    2. Staying at the Scientology compound again eh?

                    3. I’d rather just have a trouble free weekend by the pool, with some beer, lazy river, and waterslides. Supposed to be triple digits there by Friday.

                      I can get that without signing a billion year contract.

                      I’m interested in Gen KBBQ, but if we have a large group, that might not work out. Now that we have a poutine hookup….

                  2. “there is evidence that is not appropriate to share in a public forum”

                    OMG, that is just great. Does this sum up some incredibly sad mix of insular self importance, desperate loneliness and manic obsessiveness, or what?

                2. But you *must* see it. They’ve got so much riding on it!

                3. Bo doesn’t argue anything consistently, all he does is argue pedantic points and move goal posts.

                  It is the Chewbacca defense.

              2. I’ve concluded Episiarch and SugarFree must be the same person, because of the way they fuck up links.

                  1. I am everywhere.

  5. Shikha. Serious questions. What should the U.S. immigration policy be or should their be one at all? Should all border crossing and passport/ID checks on international flight be eliminated? No annual limits or limits of any kind? Should the U.S. provide transportation to everyone who cannot afford to travel here on their own accord? Should their be any type of identification checks or any other verification’s done for public assistance? Should everyone who comes be automatically given U.S citizenship, no questions ask? I know you are against having U.S. border, just curious as to what all that would entail. If there is no border does that mean the U.S is not a sovereign entity and I don’t have to follow any laws or pay any taxes as well? In short, what if any should the law be?

    1. Talk about derp.

      ‘Open borders’ proponents usually allow for filtering the sick and the criminal, it just means that as we allow goods to move freely over the border (though we check them to see if they’re weapons to be used against us or the like) we allow people to do the same.

      1. What does “sovereign borders” mean to you, Bo?

        1. I just explained it.

          Sovereign borders is where your nation’s law applies. And if it’s a sane country that values liberty that law allows peaceable people to cross into and out of it.

          1. And our nation doesn’t allows peaceable people to cross into and out of it.?
            What are our nations laws concerning unauthorized access or trespass across that line where your nation’s law applies?

          2. We allow a whole crapload of peacable people to come into and out of the US.

            The restrictions are mostly on who can stay here indefinitely, without visible means of support (other than welfare, of course).

            1. I wasn’t aware our immigration laws depended on means of support the way you describe.

              1. VI. U.S. Citizenship

                In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, an individual must have had LPR status (a green card) for at least 5 years (or 3 years if he or she obtained the green card through a U.S.-citizen spouse or through the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA). There are other exceptions for members of the U.S. military who serve in a time of war or declared hostilities. Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate “good moral character,” pass English and U.S. history and civics exams, and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

                1. The restrictions are mostly on who can stay here indefinitely, without visible means of support (other than welfare, of course).

                  Sponsorship seems to be the key to impoverished immigrants naturalizing in the U.S., and a Form I-864P. The sponsor is responsible fro repayment of means tested benefits used by the immigrant.

                2. I thought we were talking about immigration, not citizenship?

                  1. We are. And most immigration rules have the purpose of ensuring that someone seeking a long-term or indefinite stay have a job.

                    All the hullabaloo about green cards and various categories of visas? Those are all different flavors of work permits.

                    1. Some pretty big conflation.

                    2. I wasn’t aware our immigration laws depended on means of support the way you describe.[…]Some pretty big conflation.

                      I had to get a fake raise from my boss so that I could convince the federal government my law student wife from Europe would be able to be supported on my part time student income.

                  2. You may be eligible to apply for a green card (permanent residence) through your family, a job offer or employment, refugee or asylum status, or a number of other special provisions. In some cases, you may even be able to self petition or have a record created for permanent residence on your behalf. In general, to meet the requirements for permanent residence in the United States, you must:
                    ?Be eligible for one of the immigrant categories established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
                    ?Have a qualifying immigrant petition filed and approved for you (with a few exceptions)
                    ?Have an immigrant visa immediately available
                    ?Be admissible to the United States

                    1. Admissibility to the United States

                      All persons applying for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status must prove to the satisfaction of immigration or consular officials that they are admissible (eligible for admission) to the United States.

                      There are many grounds of inadmissibility that could potentially cause someone to be ineligible to become a permanent resident. For instance, there are health-related, criminal, security-related, and other grounds USCIS must consider.

                      In some cases and in certain situations, if you are found inadmissible to the United States you may be eligible to file a waiver on Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, (the form required for most immigrants) or I-602, Application By Refugee For Waiver of Grounds of Excludability (the form required for refugees and asylees) to excuse your inadmissibility.

                      The grounds of inadmissibility are determined by the particular category under which you are immigrating. If you are ultimately found inadmissible to the United States, your adjustment of status application (Form I-485) or immigrant visa application will be denied. Congress has set the grounds of inadmissibility and they may be referenced in Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

                      I-134, Affidavit of Support rather than Form I-864P

      2. Typical. Avoid answering any of the tough questions. Just pontificate.

        1. That was to BCE

          1. Bo is a Tulpa sockpuppet, dude. He was outed Sunday.

            1. Yeah, I’m not surprised. Usually I don’t ever respond at all to these assholes and this is exactly why.

        2. I answered your questions. I can’t help it if you didn’t get it.

          1. He answered your qu?sti?nes. He can’t help it if he did so in form of a mystification rather than in form of an honest reply.

        3. What tough questions? Who has ever said that people should be given citizenship immediately upon entering the country? Or called for govt-paid transport to the country?

          1. So the immigration policy should be exactly what?

            1. What Bo said.

              The govt should need a compelling reason to stop someone from entering the country. Sickness and criminal history can be good reasons.

              1. “The govt should need a compelling reason to stop someone from entering the country. Sickness and criminal history can be good reasons.”

                What the fundamental difference between this and the “total police state” described above?

                1. “What the fundamental difference between this and the “total police state” described above?”

                  Er, what’s the difference between saying “you can’t come in because you are a nearly certain danger” and “you can’t come in because you’re from a different place?”

                  1. “Er, what’s the difference between saying “you can’t come in because you are a nearly certain danger” and “you can’t come in because you’re from a different place?””

                    Sure. Both require someone to ask the question, do they not?

                    1. Likewise, the customs official can ask “is that from another country, well it can’t come in here!” and he can ask “is that a harmful object, well it can’t come in here!” Do you really see them as equivalent since they are both questions?

                    2. “Likewise, the customs official can ask “is that from another country, well it can’t come in here!” and he can ask “is that a harmful object, well it can’t come in here!” Do you really see them as equivalent since they are both questions?”

                      A cop is a cop is a cop.

                      The question being asked obviously irrelevant, either the border is being policed or it isn’t.

                    3. “A cop is a cop is a cop.”

                      Whether he’s enforcing a drug law or a larceny law, amirite? See now?

                    4. “Whether he’s enforcing a drug law or a larceny law, amirite? See now?”

                      Loses the bite when it’s an immigration law or an… immigration law. In the name of open borders no less.

                2. Looser restrictions generally means greater compliance. People aren’t going to risk their lives in the desert, and paying a coyote, when they can walk up to a secure checkpoint and answer some questions.

                  Obviously people can still try to cross, perhaps because they are criminals or sick and really want to come. That’s a risk that can’t be fully eliminated. Yes, there would still be border police, with a much narrower mission.

                  1. “Obviously people can still try to cross, perhaps because they are criminals or sick and really want to come. That’s a risk that can’t be fully eliminated. Yes, there would still be border police, with a much narrower mission.”

                    Thank you. You’re straightforwardness is a breath of fresh air.

              2. What if they are sick or have a criminal history and they come across anyways?

                1. And why should people not be given a citizenship upon entry? It’s not their fault they were not born here. Also, how is it fair that people on our borders can walk across but people in Africa who cannot do so and cannot afford airfare are denied the American dream?

                  1. Citizenship can be distinguished from open borders, one can expect some demonstration of commitment for that.

              3. And what do we do with these people once they are in the country? If they are unable to support themselves or their families, should they be eligible to receive welfare payments? Should they be given the right to attend state public universities and be charged the same tuition as in-state students? Should they be eligible to apply for citizenship, with all the attendant privileges that that entails? After what kind of process?

                I’d be fine with an extended guest worker program, for people who have no intention of ever becoming U.S. citizens. You can live and work in the country for as long as you wish without restriction, after undergoing a medical examination and a criminal background check. But if you want to become a citizen, then you need to submit to our standard immigration process.

                1. I’d get rid of all those government programs tomorrow if I had my druthers, so my answer is no they shouldn’t get them. That has nothing to do with whether they can enter this country, work for those who want them to work for them, rent from those who want to rent to them, etc.

      3. “‘Open borders’ proponents usually allow for filtering the sick and the criminal, it just means that as we allow goods to move freely over the border (though we check them to see if they’re weapons to be used against us or the like) we allow people to do the same.”

        When you put it that way, even restrictionists can claim to be “open borders”

        1. Here’s the problem, though.

          The sick and the criminal aren’t the only potential “peacable” types we want to keep out, on account of our welfare state.

          We also need to keep out people who will be wards of the welfare state. That’s where the police state comes in – the need to make sure immigrants have jobs and keep them in order to stay legal.

          Get rid of the welfare state, and the need for an immigration police state is much less. Keep the welfare state, and unless you want every single non-sick, non-criminal on the plant to draw welfare checks in the US, you’re going to need the police state.

          1. I’m probably on your side here, for a border in the present state of things. I’d probably be for a border even without a welfare state, but that’s irrelevant now.

            I just can’t see the difference between myself and people claiming to be “open border” with exceptions. Once you allow exceptions this isn’t a matter of principle anymore.

            1. Are you for free movement of goods in and out of the country? If you are, I bet there are some goods you’d still want stopped (say, a terrorist weapon). Does that mean your commitment to free trade is bogus?

              1. Are you making my point for me? Thanks, I guess.

                1. Wow.

                  1. I know!

                    We’re in complete agreement.

                    1. I mean, do you really think those two customs positions are equivalent because they’re both questions that would turn back a good in certain circumstances? Hint: the fundamental difference is in the respective circumstances.

                    2. “I mean, do you really think those two customs positions are equivalent because they’re both questions that would turn back a good in certain circumstances?”

                      Nope. They’re both equivalent because the both require an enforcer,

                      “Hint: the fundamental difference is in the respective circumstances.”

                      Nonsense. You’re being purposefully obtuse here.

                      Either you have a tax-funded police apparatus or you don’t. Saying it’s good under some circumstances but bad under others doesn’t change anything, or differ from what restrictionists have pretty much always been saying.

                    3. That’s like saying that legalizing drugs is no change because the police will still be there enforcing laws against theft and murder.

                    4. You may as well just say “oink” already, you support policing the border. It’s okay, you’re not alone friend.

                      As

                      “That’s like saying that legalizing drugs is no change because the police will still be there enforcing laws against theft and murder.”

                      Is the silliest analogy I’ve read in many months. You can do better.

                      (Immigration=Immigration, Drug?Theft/Murder)

                    5. You’re saying that having a customs agent (that’s the analogy btw), ask if an imported object is dangerous and turning it away if it is is the same as having him ask if it’s from another country and turning it away if it is is the same because both require someone to ask the question and turn away. By that logic, having a policeman enforce a drug law and enforce larceny laws is the same thing because both require someone to ask questions and make arrests.

                    6. “By that logic, having a policeman enforce a drug law and enforce larceny laws is the same thing because both require someone to ask questions and make arrests.”

                      Not quite. You’re putting *immigration* (or customs) laws up in place of… *immigration* (or customs) laws. To make your analogy work you’d have to say “I’m for completely ending the War on Drugs, except for crack, that stuff is just is too much fun.” Then to make matters worse you’d have to defend it by saying, well keeping crack illegal isn’t a “War” so therefore it’s principled.

          2. What? Where’s the police state now ensuring that Americans have jobs and are not wards of the state?

            The police state comes in from trying to enforce immigration quotas. At least that’s the police state we’re all talking about.

            Let them get welfare if they can. I’d rather that + peaceful immigration than a stronger ICE force.

            1. Correct. We know what strong immigration enforcement looks like, we see it in laws like in Alabama and Arizona. It requires empowering the police to stop people, demand papers, etc..

              1. We know what strong immigration enforcement looks like, we see it in laws like in Alabama and Arizona. It requires empowering the police to stop people, demand papers, etc..

                You don’t have to go to Alabama or Arizona to see officials empowered to stop people, demand papers etc. Just go to the international arrival gates of any US airport. Not only do they stop foreigners and demand their papers they have taken to doing retinal scans. Is that strong enough for you? Looks pretty police-statey to me, but I have yet to hear of any Reason open borders whoopers arguing for getting INS out of airports. Why shouldn’t someone getting off an airplane be able to walk across the border at JFK as easily as someone walking into Texas?

                Why do we hate people who can afford airfare?

                1. You’re right Homple. Time to end the INS.

                  1. I’m waiting for Ms. Dalmia or another open borders fan Reason staffer to be honest enough to publish this idea.

            2. Where’s the police state now ensuring that Americans have jobs and are not wards of the state?

              There’s not one for Americans.

              There is one for immigrants. Its called the Border Patrol, ICE, you know. Those guys.

          3. The sick and the criminal aren’t the only potential “peacable” types we want to keep out, on account of our welfare state.

            1) Who the fuck is ‘we’? 2) You could immorally violate my right to freedom of association, or you could just bar these people from getting welfare.

            1. 1. ‘We’ are interested parties, tax payers, voters, etc. Though I assume you knew, just don’t like it, but as others have said, national boundaries, like state, county, and city boundaries are all just extensions of private property boundaries, so a necessary evil requiring ‘we’ via government to define when trespass happens.

              2. Barring immigrants from certain citizen services would likely work to prevent issues arising from ensuring immigrants are gainfully employed, but this is an unavailable option, as this has been defined as racist by creating second-class citizens.

              Not that I agree with this, but advising this isn’t a real solution anytime soon. It’s analogous to “just kill welfare”. Sure, that would be great, but likely to be possible only after definitive proof of unicorns, dinosaurs, and man, who only arrived 7000 years ago, all lived together.

        2. When it comes down to brass tacks, open borders proponents are not terribly supportive of limiting the sick. They’ll say it when it easy, but words are wind.

          1. “When it comes down to brass tacks, open borders proponents are not terribly supportive of limiting the sick. They’ll say it when it easy, but words are wind.”

            I imagine it’d become illegal to ask such personal, insensitive, dehumanizing questions at some point, same for criminal status.

      4. ” it just means that as we allow goods to move freely over the border ”

        Because human beings are human widgets that someone can make money off of.

  6. Soooo… Is this the triumph of “States Rights” and another curb on executive decree, or merely lamenting the fate of a group put in legal limbo in the midst of a tug-o-war between the political machinations of two feckless political groups exploiting these people for political capital in 2016?.. I’m not sure how I feel about this one.

  7. Misfortune of being born on the wrong side of the fence. The Birth Lottery. Actually, who your parents are is not random luck or misfortune. Most children are born wherever mom’s vagina was at the time. Weird coincidence, isn’t it?

    1. Some of us were hatched

      1. Get out of your cage, again? I need to build taller walls.

        1. Kinda like your mother’s cage? How did that work out for you?

          1. Those walls are to keep Epi out.

            1. Well that explains the bruises he had

  8. Helmet Camera Captured Deadly Yosemite Cliff Jump

    All right, all right. Who’s the wag here who left the second comment on this story??

    http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/w…..p-31175429

    1. “At least he died doing what he loved: pretending to be a flying squirrel.

      Or the classic?

      “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”

  9. We can’t have open borders, or even “tall fences and wide gates,” with a welfare state. LA alone spends about a billion dollars a year on illegal aliens. God knows what the numbers are for the entire state, and the whole country.

    1. Ding. Ding.

      If you have a welfare state, you will necessarily have an immigration police state whose job is to make sure people don’t come or stay just for the welfare.

      1. I have never been so sweated going through a customs agency than in Eindhoven, Netherlands. Granted, I was running on fumes when arriving at midnight local time and didn’t quite answer the question business or holiday at first, but the Dutchman interrogating me seemed concerned that I was going to renounce my US citizenship in favor of living high of the hog via Dutch welfare statism.

        1. For a bit of perspective. Eindhoven is a city filled to the brim with Somalis, Morrocans, Sudanese refugees. Now I’m not sure whether you imagine that all cultures are equal and all these groups hold hands and sing songs but that’s not remotely the case. My wife lived across the street from a Somali refugee camp and she and her housemates know full well that leaving home after dark was highly dangerous precisely because of the demographics of crime in her area.

          1. There’s no correlation between (real) crime and legal or illegal immigration in America.

            1. Since illegal immigrants are, technically speaking, breaking the law, then by definition there is 100% correlation between illegal immigrants and crime.

              Whether there are more criminal acts created by illegal immigrants (other than immigrating illegally) as opposed to others, I don’t know.

              The fact some will come here for jobs and others will come here to commit crimes though is precisely the reason even open borders types say there should be some enforcement specifically to prevent disease and criminals from entering.

      2. If you have a welfare state, you will necessarily have an immigration police state whose job is to make sure people don’t come or stay just for the welfare.

        For no benefit.

      3. Stupid question: what’s so hard about requiring proof of citizenship for welfare…?

        1. In the case of federal benefits, they do. State and local systems can differ, however.

          Also, in the case that you have a kid here, that child is entitled to federal welfare benefits, which flow through the parents, and thus the term “anchor baby” has evolved.

    2. “We can’t have open borders, or even “tall fences and wide gates,” with a welfare state.”

      We can’t have legalized drugs with a welfare state.

      We can’t have free campaign finance with a cronyist state.

      Etc.

      1. We can’t have legalized drugs with a welfare state.

        Why not?

        We can’t have free campaign finance with a cronyist state.

        I don’t even know what “free campaign finance” is.

        1. It’s classic statist thinking. A, which in itself is not violative of anyone’s rights, might cause B sometimes, so we have to restrict A.

          So, since a lot of people who use drugs make bad decisions which the state predicates intervention on, we have to restrict drugs.

          Since big donors tend to donate seeking rents, we have to restrict the donations.

          And since some immigrants might use welfare, we have to restrict immigration.

          1. I can always count on you to let us know what classic statist thinking is, Bo.

            1. I understand sometimes the fish doesn’t think about the water he swims in and needs someone to point it out to them at times, I’ll always help you that way.

    3. Are there any other freedoms you’d like to violate in the name of preserving your vaunted welfare state (which illegals make only the most trivial contribution to)? Maybe we should continue keeping drug users in jail because welfare.

      LA alone spends about a billion dollars a year on illegal aliens.

      Bullshit alert! Be forewarned, Papaya will say ANY line of bullshit fed to him by MadeUpNumbersUSA or any other huckster to support his narrative.

      1. What makes you think I want to “preserve the welfare state”? I’d get rid of it if it were up to me, but barring that, I don’t want the country to go broke.

        A projected $650 million in welfare benefits will be distributed to illegal alien parents in 2013, county officials said Monday. […]

        “When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” Antonovich said in a statement. “These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.”

        I’ll bet it’s more, now.

    4. “We can’t have open borders, or even “tall fences and wide gates,” with a welfare state. ”

      Or voting.

      You import people, you import their politics.

      1. No you don’t. That hasn’t happened before and won’t happen in the future. Your fever dreams are your problem.

  10. Some of us might cheer this ruling even if we aren’t “restrictionists”, on account of we’re not just super-excited by a President who can rewrite or ignore statutes without going through the fuss and bother of having Congress actually amend the damn statute that is so unsatisfactory.

    You know – separation of powers, rule of law, all that stuff that dead white guys cared about over 100 years ago.

    1. #deadwhitesdontmatter

      1. #livewhitesdontmattereither

    2. Are you as upset over Obama’s ignoring of federal marijuana laws in the states that have legalized it?

      1. Are you as upset over Obama’s ignoring of federal marijuana laws in the states that have legalized it?

        Probably not seeing as federal marijuana laws are an explicit usurpation by the federal government over every state’s police powers. At least when you’re working from any legal theory other than All Things Are Ruled By The Commerce Clause theory.

      2. Since I regard federal marijuana laws as completely unconstitutional (unlike immigration and naturalization laws), no, it doesn’t bother me as much.

        1. Where’s the part of the Constitution that empowers things like ICE?

          1. Article I, Section 8, clause 4.

            1. Perhaps you made a mistake, but that seems to be about naturalization.

            2. The Constitution doesn’t make any mention of immigration, which is consistent with the United States’ long history of very liberal immigration laws. Naturalization has always been a restricted privilege, but immigration was not, most until the 20th century.

            3. Bzzt wrong. Restrictions on immigration are unconstitutional.

    3. Megalo, you don’t seem to be around as much as before. What gives?

      1. Oh, man, that handle goes back.

        Been busy. Also, travelling.

        1. But you missed us, right? *Glen Close voice-We won’t be ignored!

    4. Look, the God-emperor wants to use his power for good. He just needs us all to cede a little more power to him to get it done. I mean, it’s not like governments ever use the power they usurp for terrible reasons, or to crush all opposition. Besides the government is us and we’d never… Fuck it! I cant even get through the snark. Why in the blue fuck can a magazine called reason*takes a swig of Shiner Bock* not grok the iron laws of government?

  11. House. Meanwhile, the fate of millions of Latinos will hang in the balance simply because they had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of the border ? unlike the Americans whose McMansions they build, lawns they mow and children they raise.

    What cunty little bubble Dalmia lives in. Spoken like a true social justice warrior.

    1. Because refusing to base the principle of free movement on national tribalism is so SJW!

      1. unlike the Americans whose McMansions they build, lawns they mow and children they raise.

        This part here is what I took issue with. But if you want to discuss theory; there is no principle of free movement that includes a right to either utilize stolen property or trespass against rightful property. Ergo you have a right to emigrate from everywhere, but no inherent right immigrate to anywhere.

        1. Are you talking about some collective sense of ‘Merica’s property? That’s collectivist nonsense. Immigrants have the right to enter the property of those who want them to, those who want to employ them, sell to them, rent to them. Yes, they can use whatever public rights of way the citizens of the nation can as well, but that’s not ‘trespassing.’

          1. So I have to pay for the road, but I have no say in how it’s used? Fuck off slaver.

            1. Hilarious. You’re the slaver friend. I’m defending free movement of people and freedom of association.

              Let’s play with your logic. So, since a majority of voters pay for the roads then drug and alcohol roadblocks, if that’s what they want, is OK Since a majority of voters pay for the university then speech codes, if that’s what they want, is OK. Etc.

              1. You don’t wanna play with me tulpa. I play rough sometimes. But here, play with Hoppe for a while.

                https://mises.org/sites/default/files/13_2_8_0.pdf

                1. You are wise to play that card.

          2. The Washington Times – Monday, May 3, 2010
            Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

            The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

            The Mexican government seems to have a keen grasp on its authority pertaining to the freedom of movement across its sovereign borders, Bo.

            1. What are some other areas where you’d like us to follow Mexico’s policies?

              1. It was a comparison, Bo. I hadn’t suggested that we follow Mexico’s policies at all. I would assume that at least some portion of those that cross the borders have at least a fundamental understanding of their own nations laws, pertaining to the ones they are breaking upon illegal entry in the U.S. I found the hypocrisy stunning as well. Can you name another nation that willfully ignores it’s territorial borders for the benefit of immigrants and Bo’s delicate sensibilities?

                1. We seem to be the only nation that has the respect for free speech we do too. I wouldn’t junk it because we’re the only one.

                  Also, I, and other open borders proponents, don’t believe in ‘ignoring the nation’s territorial borders.’ This has been explained here.

                  1. “Can you name another nation that willfully ignores it’s territorial borders for the benefit of immigrants and Bo’s delicate sensibilities?”

                    The “free speech” distraction did not answer this question, you know.

          3. Are you talking about some collective sense of ‘Merica’s property?

            Well, yeah, there is something to that collectivist sense.

            All property rights, as a matter of historical fact, are derived via a grant from the sovereign. And that grant is rarely, if ever, complete and unconditional, transferring any and all rights of the sovereign. Like it or not, the state retains a residual interest in your property.

            Not to mention, crossing a state boundary, even onto private property, is still crossing a state boundary, one which the state has some rights to restrict. That ranch along the Rio Grande? The southern border is not a purely private property line. Its also a state property line.

            As always, its not as simple as you would like it to be.

            1. “Like it or not, the state retains a residual interest in your property.”

              I don’t like it, and I think they should at the least not exercise it in a way that tells me who I can let work on it, live on it, shop on it, etc.

            2. All property rights

              That’s not true. You own your finger, yes? That’s a property right.

              Moreover the early Medieval period saw a great number of allodial titles, especially in Iceland, Ireland and Germany. What the sovereign supposedly does, is act as the guarantor of your property, and as a matter of historical fact states and especially non-monarchical entities have proven to be awful expropriators instead of protectors of property.

          4. Are you talking about some collective sense of ‘Merica’s property?

            No

            Immigrants have the right to enter the property of those who want them to

            Correct.

            Yes, they can use whatever public rights of way the citizens of the nation can as well

            The existence of public property is unjust but as with all property there must be rules for it’s use. The unfortunate people from whom the property was stolen and/or from whose taxes pay for the road are the only ones with any legitimate say about those rules and unfortunately those rules must be transmuted through the state who stole the property to begin with.

            I’m not saying immigrants are bad. I’m saying that would-be immigrants have no inherent right to move here or anywhere stemming from their humanity. They have only property rights or consent from those who have property rights.

            Immigration is a government program, in the absence of the crossing of political borders we just call it “moving”.

            1. Of course the people can have a say in governing public property, but we should govern it in a way that comports with natural rights and liberty. Just as the people can’t vote to restrict speech in a public park we shouldn’t bar freedom of movement along public roads.

              1. Just as the people can’t vote to restrict speech in a public park

                That’s just the problem with stolen property. People understandably don’t have rights to public property like they do with private property. Which means no matter what you do with it, you’re violating someone’s right’s with

                Just as the people can’t vote to restrict speech in a public park we shouldn’t bar freedom of movement along public roads.

                I’m saying the collectivization of stolen property we call taxes and public property and stolen liberty we call immigration laws, necessarily breeds conflict. Only the legitimate owners have a legitimate say whether they want someone to use the property or not. It isn’t the fault of rational justice that the state has muddled everything up to where justice becomes impossible. But make no mistake, free and open borders with universal access to stolen property, is not justice.

    2. I mow my own fucking lawn and I raise my own children and I don’t live in a home built by McDonald’s or whatever condescending snobbery she was going for with that one. I trust Shikha Dalmia can tell us what proportion of American children are actually raised by non-biological immigrant caretakers, how many people actually employ cheap immigrant lawncare workers and how many Americans live in any kind of palatial estate. Judging by her rhetoric, those figures must be quite high or maybe Dalmia is just disingenuous.

      1. It’s an expression. What she’s getting at is that most immigrants are working doing some job someone is willing to employ them at, and we shouldn’t get the state to jump in with coercion to break that up because they come from a different place.

        1. It’s an expression to make broad sweeping claims about 300 million people based on the associative habits of a tiny proportion of people in particular locations.

          1. Many rhetorical expressions are not meant to be technically and pedantically correct.

            1. Thanks for clearing that up.

            2. Coming from Bo, this is especially rich.

              1. He is the expert.

      2. I live in a wealthy neighborhood – haven’t seen a nanny yet.

    3. She’s a condescending and shrill harpy who’s happy with the President sidelining congress and ignoring precedent so long as it works out in her favor.

      1. Again, you’re just as upset about the administration’s orders to not prosecute drug users who are complying with state laws where its legalized, right?

        1. Believe it or not, there is precedent for the feds delegating enforcement authority to the states, even where there is federal law on the books. Its been done with actual statutes and stuff, though, so its not a great precedent for unilateral executive action.

          However, the feds have taken the exact opposite position on immigration: prohibiting states from taking action to enforce state or federal law.

          So here we have the feds refusing to allow states to enforce the law, and refusing to have the feds enforce the law. That’s a little different than saying “if the state enforces its law, the feds will stand down”.

      2. the President sidelining congress and ignoring precedent

        Bingo. This is my main beef. Immigration has nothing to do with it – the president’s power-grabbing ways do.

    4. To Dhalmia, McMansion is an insult. Fuck her. I’d take one.

      1. Yeah, me too. I can’t afford one so I live in a McShithole.

        1. I live in a nice condo near the center of Tokyo. I’m sure I could’ve bought a McMansion for the same price, but my job is here. Unlike Dhalmia, I’m not gonna ridicule people for choosing spacious housing over the shoeboxes us city dwellers live in. I do a have a little brown maid, however. My kid.

  12. Are you people still playing with Tulpa?

    1. Gathering more evidence for the Unitroll theory?

      1. Well, he’s really stupid, you see. He can’t help acting stupid when you call him names he doesn’t like.

      2. It has all been gathered.

        1. As a monument to your patheticness?

          1. True or not, talk about living rent free in someone’s head. Jesus freaking Christ, if you’re the same guy or you aren’t, who really gives a shit?

            1. Apparently people like Playa, a grown man with kids whose busy ‘gathering data’ to try prove who this or that anonymous poster on a national political forum is or isn’t.

  13. The house next to mine has a kid.
    This kid is annoying a fuck. He screams while doing everything. Screams while playing, while watching tv, if something doesn’t go his way… Sream, scream, scream.

    I’ve named this kid Bo.

    1. So he’s handsome and sleeping with your old lady behind your back?

  14. On Topic: A great piece over at Instapundit.

    A VELVET FIST DICTATORSHIP: Do they not see the irony? The New York Times published an oped over the weekend titled, “The New Dictators Rule by Velvet Fist,” penned by a couple of professors. Their thesis:

    [A] new brand of authoritarian government has evolved that is better adapted to an era of global media, economic interdependence and information technology. The “soft” dictators concentrate power, stifling opposition and eliminating checks and balances, while using hardly any violence.”

    Um, yeah. Sound familiar? Eliminating checks and balances? Anyone? To make matters worse, the authors further elaborate on the characteristics of such “soft” dictatorships:

    “The new autocrats often get to power through reasonably fair elections. Mr. Ch?vez, for instance, won in 1998 in what international observers called one of the most transparent votes in Venezuela’s history.

    Soaring approval ratings are a more cost-effective path to dominance than terror. Mr. Erdogan exploited his popularity to amend the Constitution by referendum and to pack Turkey’s Constitutional Court.

    1. The new autocrats use propaganda, censorship and other information-based tricks to inflate their ratings and to convince citizens of their superiority over available alternatives. . . .

      When their economies do well, such leaders co-opt potential critics with material rewards. In harder times, they use censorship. The new autocrats bribe media owners with advertising contracts, threaten libel suits, and encourage pro-regime investors to purchase critical publications.

      They dominate the Internet by blocking access to independent websites, hiring “trolls” to flood comments pages with pro-regime spam, and paying hackers to vandalize opposition online media sites.”

      I could hardy contain my laughter whilst reading this. Hmmmm? let’s see: propaganda? Check. Censorship? Check. Co-opting potential critics with material rewards? Check. Control over media through various civil or criminal means? Check. As for hiring trolls to flood comments and vandalizing opposition media sites, that can all be accomplished through private groups, without the need for government fingerprints.

      But hey, I’m sure that could never happen here.

      1. There really is no excuse for this. There was never a time when Obumbles was not very obviously exactly what he is. I remember seeing an expose on the fucker when he was still in the Illinois senate and he was referred to then as a closet socialist….by NBfuckin’C.

        All you delusional, retarded shitheads that voted for him, welcome to post-racial America.

      2. hiring “trolls” to flood comments pages with pro-regime spam

        That sounds familiar.

    2. Meet the new autocrats
      Same as the old autocrats

    3. Speaking of autocrats… who wants ice cream?

  15. Let me see if I can find the most absurd exception to every post, defend it’s relevance to my dying breath and, finally, declare myself victorious. Never mind. I don’t wanna do that.

    1. No, you do want to do that. It is what you were born to do. It is your reason for being. It is your gift. You must use it.

      1. You’ve presented a paradox. If I do what you say, I won’t be contradicting you. If I don’t do what you say, I will be contradicting you. However, if a contraction isn’t articulated is it still a contradiction?

        1. You are a natural!

    2. Are you referring to someone here who most likely fits the description from my post “hired “trolls” who flood comments pages with pro-regime spam.”

      Surely not. We never have anyone here who fits that description. It is unpossible.

      1. If you can’t recognize who the sucker at the table is, it’s you.

        1. Heh. You are a natural!

  16. OT

    Who else is excited for the Entourage movie?

    1. I got bored of that show after about 2 seasons, although the idea of a fictional Aquaman movie directed by James Cameron still makes me chuckle.

      Was the final season (or specifically the final episode) really as bad as I’ve heard?

      1. Oh I stopped watching around the same time as you. I saw a commercial for the movie and thought it looked like the awful douche magnet that show was.

        However, I would watch James Cameron direct a movie about Aquaman. However, I am not excited about an Aquaman movie starring Khal Drogo himself. The comic films have gone too far!

  17. “(Please, spare me the bromides about how being in the country “illegally” in violation of a sham rule of law is a crime.) ”

    What kind of cheese goes with that whine?

      1. “It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby”

  18. U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, sitting in Brownsville, Texas

    His name sounds like the judge is a minority…in Brownsville. Great town by the way. Everyone was very friendly. Lots o’ hot chicks of all ages and social classes I’d even consider living there if someone would pay me money to do what I do.Unfortunately, the biggest employer is local government and I don’t have the skills Space-X is looking for. I was disappointed my passport was expired so I couldn’t visit Matamoros or check out the Gulf coast beyond Boca Chica. Turns out the US government classifies the whole state of Tamaulipas as a “forbidden zone” where Americans shouldn’t venture even on major highways during daylight hours.

  19. Another thread full of butthurt mouth-breathing ‘libertarians’ who got lost on their way to Breittard, and can’t really land a hit on Shikha. Psst: libertarianism/freedom isn’t about indulging your pants-wetting tendencies regarding ‘culture’ or protecting the welfare state.

    1. My concern is not so much about dirty furriners, but rather Obumbles lawless behavior. Bypassing congress with executive orders, even legal ones, is no small matter.

      1. Shikha has made it pretty clear that this is within the president’s powers.

        1. Cytotoxic|5.26.15 @ 11:38PM|#
          “Shikha has made it pretty clear that this is within the president’s powers.”

          Well, in that case!
          Between she and the mouth-breathing war monger, we have all we need!

        2. It is not within his powers, as the courts have pointed out, and it is not Shikha’s place to pronounce it so.

    2. Cytotoxic|5.26.15 @ 10:01PM|#
      “Another thread full of butthurt mouth-breathing ‘libertarians’ who got lost on their way to Breittard, and can’t really land a hit on Shikha.”

      This from a butthurt mouth-breathing ‘libertarian’ who got lost on the way to licking Obo ass as Obo launches one more drone strike!
      Did you get off on that one C? I know you *love* ’em!
      BTW, I favor open borders and I’m sorry to be in the company of such an idjit in doing so. I also temper this particular issue by joining S-boy in opposing Obo’s efforts even if I favor the result.

  20. If you are in favor of enforcing America’s immigration laws, you are in favor of a police state and the death of the US republic.

    1. If you are in favor of enforcing America’s immigration laws, you are in favor of a police state and the death of the US republic.

      Repaired that at no cost to you.

      1. I know you think this is a biting comeback, but that’s only because you are a blockhead.

        1. No, it’s because Homple’s smarter than you.

    2. Aren’t you from Canada? Why do you even care?

  21. Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2 [1911]

    http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com…..k_v6.0.pdf

    “Mr ?Madison? seconded the motion. He wished to maintain the character of liberality
    which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America. He
    wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. ”

    ### foreigners of merit & republican principles ###

    James was a clever fellow.

  22. It is perfectly logical and consistent for a libertarian to favor open immigration but why exactly do libertarian pundits believe that Republican politicians should feel the same?

    Millions more Democratic voters might be _the moral thing_ but again how does this affect a GOP congressman’s vote?

  23. A huge amount of people actually WANT to come to America (300 plus million population). The support system is on the verge of collapse. It wont be able to survive several million South Americans and even Asians crowding the same 8-10 states.

    And because the statist government gets in the way of building housing or creating fast track opportunities (just consider Uber), the booming population resulting from open border is going to create some serious problems. The nation has to either reform the welfare state or truly embrace the free market before they can even experiment with open borders. Otherwise the nail salon level exploitation will only expand.

    The left obviously sees political advantages in accepting immigrants. And yet, open borders will almost certainly flood the job market with skilled foreign workers and college applicants freed from visa applications. That’s fine for us, but the union and the tech crowd won’t like it.

    Why does Canada have 1/10 of our immigration population? Do they have military grade borders? No, because in most places in the world non citizens aren’t guaranteed anything. I got healthcare in the US when I was illegal. That’s probably much more difficult in the UK or Canada. And they don’t confer citizenship to “anchor babies”

    America is extraordinarily generous to immigrants regardless of their ability to contribute. It’s one of the reasons why immigration continues to be a grey political area in the country.

    1. Because to get to Canada, you need to fly there, basically.

      Most of its immigrants are middle class people from Asia.

      I have no problem with that. We need immigrants with skills, who can speak English, and have money. (Then again, most of those are on H1B visas taking skilled jobs from Americans)

      We don’t need immigrants that have no skills, don’t speak English (and have no interest in learning), and will mooch off the welfare system. Yeah, one person in their family might work, but a minimum wage job isn’t going to offset the money spent on food stamps, healthcare, children’s education, etc

  24. Jeezus aitch fukking crist. There is no right to freedom of movement.

    Watch a nature show. Go out in the woods and look.

    Animals have territories–territories that they defend. Even plants act defensively towards intruders.

    You sneak across another’s territory or you fight to take it. Or you’re a species that does not compete with the territory holder–so your territories can overlap.

    And humans are animals.

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

    Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

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

    1. “You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:”

      Or voting.

  26. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.workweb40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.