Rand Paul

Civil Libertarian Rand Paul Becomes the Frontman for a Notorious Racial Profiling and Surveillance Program

He wants Muslim foreigners to be required to register with Uncle Sam

|

Even the most ardent supporters of more open immigration policies would

Ran Paul Caricature
DonkeyHotey / Foter / CC BY

concede that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping out folks who pose a genuine security threat to the country. So Rand Paul's comments yesterday to Breitbart.com in the wake of the tragic Chattanooga shooting that there needs to be "heightened scrutiny" of those entering America are not indefensible. However, what is indefensible is just how blasé Paul is about some of the solutions he is proposing.

He has made opposition to government surveillance his signature issue. Only about a month ago he was spouting sentences like the government should not be "forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety." That "is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people." So one would have thought that he would not try and do Lindsey Graham's job for him and position himself as the frontman for the notorious National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) that is nothing if not surveillance-on-steroids. Implemented in the wake of 9-11, the program was a naked form of racial profiling that targeted Musims and was finally suspended in 2011. Yet, Paul commented to Breitbart:

I'm going to have our subcommittee and maybe committee in Homeland Security look into whether or not we could reinstitute this NSEERS [National Security Entry Exit Registration System] program.

So what did this program do? It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?), it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam's functionaries and register. Explains the Migration Policy Institute:

Registration includes a meeting with an immigration official where the interviewees are fingerprinted (both digitally and with ink), photographed, and asked a series of questions under oath. In addition to the initial registration, foreign visitors must also appear at a U.S. immigration office within 10 days of the one-year anniversary date of initial registration. All of these foreign visitors are required to complete a departure check only at a designated departure port (of which there are approximately 100 nationwide) on the same day that they intend to leave the country. Willful refusal to register is a criminal violation; overstaying a visa is a civil violation.

Expecting terrorists to voluntarily stroll to an immigration office to be fingerprinted and IDed is absurd, of course. So the entirely predictable upshot of the program was that although it managed to obtain not a single terrorism-related conviction, it did ruin plenty of lives of peaceful Muslims caught in its dragnet. Consider the case of Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb, a refugee from Iraq. As per the ACLU:

he was lawfully admitted to the United States after suffering imprisonment and torture by Saddam Hussein's regime. Habeeb was on a train from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to start a new life when Border Patrol agents singled him out for questioning without any individualized suspicion. As a refugee, Habeeb was not required to register with NSEERS, but when he showed the border agents his refugee documentation, the agents insisted—incorrectly—that he was in violation of NSEERS' registration requirements. Detained for a week, Habeeb lost his job. Habeeb was terrified of being returned to Iraq, yet the government stubbornly continued deportation proceedings for six weeks. Ultimately, after the ACLU filed suit, Habeeb won an apology from the government stating: "[T]he United States of America acknowledges that, by not registering under NSEERS, you did nothing wrong [and] regrets the mistake."

Paul maintains that immigration is not a right; it's a privilege. But the Constitution guarantees immigrants in the country the same due process and other basic rights as citizens because it understands that a Leviathan that is authorized to abuse the rights of one set of people is not likely to respect those of others for very long. A civil libertarian like Paul, especially one who is trying to strike a concerned pose about the abuse of minority rights, ought to understand this.

But, then, of course, politicians are used to living in a state of cognitive dissonance. Those who think that Paul would be any different might want to think again.

NEXT: NYC Bill to Stop Uber From Growing Now About Protecting Passengers, or Something

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. Not to defend the program, but…

    Islam is a race? That would be news to the Albanians and Bosnians…

    1. “Racial profiling” is now a generic term for this level of barbaric bigotry.
      We could even use it to profile gender. It’s just easier to look for tits.

      1. “barbaric bigotry”

        Meanwhile, try flying to any muslim country with an Israeli passport

        1. You set the bar for our conduct as a nation so high!

        2. That’s the standard now? “Some third-world shithole does worse?”

          1. Not at all. We could easily do worse by importing citizens from a third world shithole.

      2. Okay. ( . Y . )

      3. My eyes are scanning for tits if they are open.

  2. oh goody:) I’ll keep checking back.

  3. He wants the muzzle-ums to control the Muslims?

  4. “It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?)”

    No, this objection is stupid

    Preventing “any and all muslims” from entering the country would be an unjustified bar against millions of people from allied nations that have zero real connection to islamic-motivated violence (e.g. India, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc). Obviously you can’t and shouldn’t ban people from entry to the US based on their religion alone.

    However, i fail to see the objection to screening incoming persons at the point of entry to establish whether or not there is any potential reason for concern.

    The other parts of shika’s argument have similar flaws.

    I do think this particular program is probably asinine and needless, and probably results in lots of ‘false positives’ that fuck with innocent people while providing little protection.

    That said, i think that when the country faces a terrorist threat from a highly-specific group of muslims, that attempting to impose some kind of bare-minimum ‘profiling’ effort shouldn’t by default be considered a violation of privacy or grave injustice.

    Being an “open country” doesn’t mean we should necesarily oppose any and all forms of basic-security, even if they happen to single out specific groups of people in ways that some might find ‘offensive’.

    1. preventing muslims from immigrating unless they are able, talented people who are interested in the USA because they wish to totally abandon the 7th century, entirely and forever, seems like a very good idea. Enhanced screening seems like the only way to do this.

    2. It’s a moral barbarity to seek out terrorists by violating individual liberties with warrantless surveillance. But okay to strip search and force all Muslims to registers.

      Jim Crow had no such audacity. Rand is playing to the same extreme socon goobers who have been brainwashed about the Koran. and everything else Muslim, manipulated by hysteria. And if Arizona couldn’t do it to Mexicans, then far worse cannot be done to Muslims. So this can be no more than grandstanding … toward who?

      Back here on planet earth, the only large scale slaughter of Jews has been done by …. Christians.

      1. You’re so stupidly wrong it physically hurts me.

        Read this wiki article. It’s rife with Muslim massacre of Jews.

        Of course you’ll probably come back and say that “large scale” only means 5 million+, so all these other ones don’t count.

        1. You’re so stupidly wrong it physically hurts me.

          Your pain will ease when you pull your head out of your ass.

          Read this wiki article. It’s rife with Muslim massacre of Jews.

          Your source. Second paragraph:
          During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.[2] For instance, Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers.

          So, who was persecuting those Jews in Medieval Europe? Buddists? Rosicrucians? Scientologists? Or Christians?

          Of course you’ll probably come back and say that “large scale” only means 5 million+, so all these other ones don’t count.

          You’re off by 900 years. So you flew into a rage, having no fucking idea what events I referenced.

          No go check your source BEFORE 1000 AD. You seem to assume all those conquests, including the middle ages were as brutal as the conquest of Canaan But your own source mostly describes Jews living under Muslim Rule.

          Educate yourself:

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5451489

          (My tone is in defense of aggression)

        2. trigger warning!!!! oh, too late.

      2. Sooo.. an open door policy for admitting Nazi war criminals emigrating from Germany and occupied territories would have been acceptable, because.. hey, not all of them actually killed a Jew personally? Profiling them would have constituted “moral barbarity”..

        1. Burn that straw man, newbie troll.

          1. Tear it down, venerable one…

        2. youre talking about Catholic priests, right?

      3. “Back here on planet earth, the only large scale slaughter of Jews has been done by …. Christians.”

        What the fucking shit? There’s no way you’re this stupid.

        1. Look.. it clearly said “GOTT MIT UNS” on German belt buckles, soo..
          Obviously, it was religious persecution by Christian extremists, all the way down..

        2. AGAIN

          Irish ?s ESB
          “Back here on planet earth, the only large scale slaughter of Jews has been done by …. Christians.”

          What the fucking shit? There’s no way you’re this stupid.

          The earlier Crusades (1-3) slaughtered thousands of Jews on the way to Jerusalem — various labels: first pogrom,. first Holocaust, Rhineland Massacre.

          When they reached Jerusalem, they evicted or burned to death all the Jews

          http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-first-crusade/

          Shortened Link

          (The Jewish source is sanitized, likely for Judeo-Christian sensibility. Wikipedia and others include the gory details)

          Pay attention.
          It was Christians who evicted/killed the Jews from Jerusalem. Muslims who allowed the Jews back in. If you don’t know THAT, then you don’t know what the FUCK is going on over there. MUSLIMS saved the Jews. The dumbass West didn’t know that history when they created Israel. “Thank you Muslims for rescuing us.”)

          (“large scale slaughter” in percentages. The Christians killed 1/4-1/3 of all Jews in Europe, before wiping out the Jerusalem Jews)

          (My tone based on defense against aggression)

          1. The Holocaust was far larger in scale in both absolute and percentage terms than the Crusades. You said: the only large scale slaughter of Jews has been done by …. Christians.

            That is patently false. There have been large scale slaughters of Jews, both preceding and following the Crusades, perpetrated by various different nations and cultures, one of which dwarfed all that came before it.

            You are basically the personification of the old adage “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Although giving you credit for even “a little” knowledge is charitable.

          2. Look, Hihn, you’re right in saying that many who called themselves “christian” (almost all under orders of the Pope, in that time a governmental ruler) killed a bunch of Jews. The Crusades were awful, no doubt.

            But the Holocaust happened too.

            Also, you really need to look up the term “aggression”. Telling you that you are wrong isn’t aggression. If NAP is a the heart of libertarianism, then your broad concept of “aggression” would have everyone in prison, including yourself.

            (Hoping not to have another week long argument…)

      4. Spit it out Hiln. Spit the dick out. You are making yourself look more stupid than even Reason commenters though possible.

        No one said that all Muslims must register. Just those who are not American citzens who wish to enter this country. They are not forced to register, only if they want to enter the US. If you are going to argue against this proposal because it came from the other team at least argue against what was actually proposed, not what you made up.

        It is the height of stupidity for a country who has been declared war upon by members of a violent ideology to allow virtual unfettered access to the country by members of that ideology without at the very least some indepth screening.

        We here all know that if Obama would have proposed this you would be singing it’s praises from the mountain tops.

        Spit. Out. The. Dick. Hiln.

        1. Dumbass of the year?
          emphasis added … for my pure pleasure!

          OneOut
          Spit the dick out. You are making yourself look more stupid than even Reason commenters though possible.

          No one said that all Muslims must register. Just those who are not American citizens who wish to enter this country. They are not forced to register, only if they want to enter the US.

          Fourth paragraph
          it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam’s functionaries and register.

          The dumbfuck continues …

          “We here all know that if Obama would have proposed this you would be singing it’s praises from the mountain tops”

          I won’t jam this one down his throat. I’ll jJust pity the trashmouth fool … who will be stalking me for months.

          (My tone is in defense of totally mindless aggression
          How can I possibly respond without totally humiliating this goober)

          1. “No one said that all Muslims must register. Just those who are not American citizens who wish to enter this country. They are not forced to register, only if they want to enter the US.

            Fourth paragraph
            it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam’s functionaries and register.”

            So in this period of your hysteria “already in the country” means the same as “citizen” ?

            Interesting. What other words do you use that mean whatever you say they mean ?

            Be careful today Hiln, people are known to hurt themselves after an episode of mania. As much as I consider you an intellectual fool I still don’t wish you physical harm even if self inflicted.

            1. Can OneOut be wackier? Wanna bet?

              OneOut Quotes himself. emphasis added for the morally depraved.:

              “No one said that all Muslims must register. Just those who are not American citizens who wish to enter this country. They are not forced to register, only if they want to enter the US.

              Read him the paragraph he lied about

              Fourth
              it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam’s functionaries and register.”

              OneOut goes off the rogue

              So in this period of your hysteria “already in the country” means the same as “citizen” ?

              Let’s ……. do ……… this ……….. slowly ……….

              First: : It only applies to those who want to enter the country
              Fact: boys and men over 16 years already in the country
              Psycho time: So in this period of your hysteria “already in the country” means the same as “citizen” ? ((WTF))

              Show of hands. Is “already in the country” the same as “who wish to enter the country”?

              GOT IT?

              WHY would he do anything so crazy? Revenge.
              He was an even bigger ass up the page, here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5451507

              (My response in defense of aggression)

              1. Well, I am glad you guys got that one all squared away. Onward to curing cancer!

              2. Hihn, the man who claimed Canada killed millions of people by not stealing more money for its health care system.

                Michael Hihn suffers the same problem that all idiotic statists suffer.

                He cannot separate the past from the present, and the worst part about him and other statists is that he makes up the past as he goes along to make himself and his ideology look better in the present.

                I’m pretty sure Hihn is Tony. Tony is just the name he uses when he decides to take the mask off.

      5. Jooos! And Mooooslims! Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!111!!!
        Yeah, i think extra screening for Muslims is stupid, but extra screening for people coming from some countries, like our “ally” Saudi Arabia, might be warranted.

        1. Oddly enough, just as light is both particle, and wave.. islam is conveniently a race and/or religion whenever its apologists desperately need to deflect criticism… The malleability is truly astounding..

          1. Yes and it is also political ideology whenever it suits theose same apologists.

            Islam, the treat that just keeps on giving.

        2. This is the best, most reasonable solution absolutely IMO. If a country’s national carries out or tries to carry out an act of terrorism, then their nationals in the US get put on the watch list for a certain period of time. Say twenty years or whatever. If another one is tried in that time then the timer resets.

          Probably wouldn’t be long before most Muslim countries are on that list anyway though, so you can accomplish the same thing without the overt prejudice.

      6. Hiln: “Back here on planet earth, the only large scale slaughter of Jews has been done by …. Christians.”

        There must be another planet earth that Hiln lives on that most aren’t aware of. Simply not being a Jew or Muslim, or Hindu or whatever does not by default make someone a Christian on the 3rd rock from the sun Earth.

        1. Is English your second language or your third?

    3. “However, i fail to see the objection to screening incoming persons at the point of entry to establish whether or not there is any potential reason for concern.”

      That’s the job of the agency that determines to grant the visa or not. They can take their time, check references, etc. All customs agents at the entry point can really do is search and harass people.

      1. you need a visa simply to visit the US?

        visas are a specific category of traveler.

        1. It depends on your passport.

          Some people can’t get in the country without a visa.

      2. to be clear – it was shikha who made the false-choice argument that ‘either we ban everyone from muslim countries’… or just let everyone in sans any further examination whatsoever’

        …as though there is absolutely zero reasonable middle ground.

        I was simply saying that unilateral bans on people from muslim countries (or moozy lookin’ or whatever) are stupid and unnecessary… but that there’s no reason there couldn’t be some specific screening done to target people who fit profiles. Which frankly, we’re going to do whether its an officially-acknowledged policy or not. I think the knee-jerk reaction to ‘profiling’ as somehow ‘racist and inappropriate’ by default is mistaken.

        1. Isreal looks for bombers who are trying to get on it’s airplanes while the TSA looks for bombs.

          That is why we have TSA employees running their hands around young children’s private parts why ignoring Muslims for fear of being accussed of profiling.

          1. Not to mention, It’s good indoctrination to start searching American citizens when they’re babies, if you plan on searching them randomly or otherwise for their entire lives.

          2. Isreal or Isnotreal ? You be the judge.

        2. That’s Shika mania.

    4. However, i fail to see the objection to screening incoming persons at the point of entry to establish whether or not there is any potential reason for concern

      That’s nuts. You do that sort of screening when they apply for their visas, not after they have already arrived and are all queued up at the arrival terminal waiting to get in. Suppose you had an entire jumbo jet-load arrive from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. If most were Muslim, to screen each and every one of them in the way you’re suggesting would take hours.

      That said, i think that when the country faces a terrorist threat from a highly-specific group of muslims…

      Your bigotry is showing. First of all, I presume you MEANT to say “a highly specific group of PEOPLE”. Secondly, what “terrorist threat” are you referring to?

      Being an “open country” doesn’t mean we should necesarily oppose any and all forms of basic-security, even if they happen to single out specific groups of people in ways that some might find ‘offensive’.

      That won’t stop them getting in–if they really do want to get in, that is. It will merely require them to use more inventive and less “open” ways than arriving through the front door.

      1. I presume you MEANT to say “a highly specific group of PEOPLE”

        I doubt it. I think he meant exactly what he said. There is a very specific subset of Muslims engaged in terrorist activities, not the entirety of Islam. He was saying that profiling for that specific subset is justifiable, while blanket bans are not. I think you failed to comprehend what was being said.

      2. And this, my friends, is why libertarians will never win the battle for hearts and minds.

        The foreign policy of my liberty minded peers is asinine.

        Open borders in the welfare state is a big enough issue on its own. Open borders for people who want to kill us is even more fucking retarded.

  5. it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam’s functionaries and register. Explains the Migration Policy Institute:

    According to the long provided this is a lie.

    1. Link

      1. Since when does Shikha tell the truth?

  6. I reiterate my comment from last weekend =

    Shikha and Richman are like Reason’s weekend troll-flypaper.

    I sort of wish they’d just go back to having Weekend Open Threads. At least then we wouldn’t have to deal with the same subject matter all the time.

      1. same article was posted here as well.

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..hands-on-m

      2. That one was a new low. Isn’t freedom of contract one of the foundations of Libertarianism?

        And this has to be one of the dumbest paragraphs I have ever read

        Furthermore, true privatization would require more than just getting the government out of the marriage licensing and registration business. It would mean giving communities the authority to write their own marriage rules and enforce them on couples. This would mean letting Mormon marriages be governed by the Church of the Latter Day Saints codebook, Muslims by Koranic sharia, Hassids by the Old Testament, and gays by their own church or non-religious equivalent. Inter-faith couples could choose one of their communities ? but only if it allowed interfaith marriages.

        Does Dalmia think the Mormans can throw you in jail? Yeah, you have to do that now. If you are an Orthodox Jew and you marry outside the tribe, they don’t let you and your gentile wife in the Temple. If you are a Catholic and don’t get married in the Church, the church doesn’t consider you married. And if you do get married in the church, the church will never recognize your divorce if you ever get one and won’t let you marry someone else in the church.

        This is what civic institutions do; set up rules and kick anyone who doesn’t abide by them out. Why does Dalmia act like that is such a problem? She is just appalling.

        1. Isn’t freedom of contract one of the foundations of Libertarianism?

          But not an excuse for dumbfuckery by the Purity Posse, who .. last I knew … never got elected to anything. so never did shit to advance liberty. Talkers and galkers. Dragging us down for nearly four decades.

          Oh wait. That would be conspiring with statists. If we all hold our breath and click our heels at noon next Wednesday, a free society will appear from the heavens spontaneously, even with stone tablets (but only two commandments to be imposed on people.)

          1. Yes, Michael, and you’ve been immensely successful at dealing with statism. That’s why no one has ever heard of you except for the people you troll in this comment section.

            1. gets called out, throws hissy fit, humiliates self
              Film at 11 🙂

              Irish ?s ESB|7.1
              Yes, Michael, and you’ve been immensely successful at dealing with statism. That’s why no one has ever heard of you except for the people you troll in this comment section.

              My role in early Libertarian Party( page search my name, chump)
              LPUS

              My Libertarian campaign for State Insurance Commisioner (2000)
              http://web.kitsapsun.com/archi…..rance.html

              As first (only?) paid director of a state Libertarian Party, I applied my background in marketing and corporate training to candidate development, training and supporting county chairs. (10-12 hours/week) That year saw three new county parties and (IIRC) four winning local candidates.

              Creating libertarian candidate websites since 1994. For prox 30+(???) libertarian candidates, campaign and/or marketing manager

              Won local election in 2 states, launched a successful (schools) tax revolt.

              Moderated first libertarian forums on CompuServe, 1993, quadrupled traffic

              (My tone in defense from aggression)

              1. Well, snap! Oh no you didn’t!

              2. Yes the libertarian party is full of nuts and morons. We already knew that.

                1. Why you so mean John, why? Bad John!

              3. Ok Hiln we get it. You just don’t get the respect you deserve gol-dammit.

                You are actually a TOP MAN in libertarian circles and we minions just do not appreciate your brilliance.

                We see that now.

                In fact I propose we enact a Respect Michael Hiln Day. It just might lower the mental health costs of whatever area you live in.

                (and maybe even save lives if he goes completely off the deep end)

                Hiln you don’t own any guns do you ? If you do I want you to immediately drive to the closest Democrat HQ and turn them in. Be sure and carry them in all at once, loaded of course, in case they won’t let you go to your vehicle to get the second load.

                1. Ok Hiln we get it. You just don’t get the respect you deserve gol-dammit.

                  Self-defense from aggression (smirk)

                  https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5451444

              4. “( page search my name, chump)”

                Well I have searched both my professional logs and personal diaries and I find no one named Michael Hiln.

                But there is a Mike H. Is that you ?

                I think I remember you Mike. .Are you the guy with the wife that could do that thing ? You know, that thing with her tongue ? Of course we remember that. All the guys were talking about that at breafast the next day.

                Hope you guys can make this years gatherings. It’s such a stressful time for those of us actually involved in the work and you bringing your wife really eases that stress on us.

                Thanks for being of service and I promise to never forget your name again.

                1. “( page search my name, chump)”

                  Well I have searched both my professional logs and personal diaries and I find no one named Michael Hiln.

                  It’s HIHN, which is only your first fuckup.

                  Does the cyber-bully know what a link is?
                  Those orange characters all strung together.
                  Umm, you click them. And go to a web age!
                  Can you handle a page search any better than a lnk?
                  (snicker)

                  Will he fuck up a second time?

                  https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5451444

                  (Posted in defense of aggression. They run in packs)

              5. I actually kind of feel sorry for poor Mikey. He’s so desperate to be taken seriously by, someone – anyone – that he actually links out to a 15 year old web page with a 1-line blurb mentioning his failed candidacy for state office, which then goes on to discuss at length the other two candidates in the election without mentioning him once; and then to a one sentence entry on Wikipedia, which he undoubtedly added himself.

                It’s like when you go into a bar in the daytime and some pathetic old alcoholic is in there impressing himself upon anybody who will listen with heroic tales of his past grandeur. And out of a sense of pity, you just roll your eyes knowingly at the other patrons and let him prattle on without calling him on his bullshit, because you realize how utterly sad it is that his life has come to this.

                1. This is why I no longer respond to his posts. They’re typically thin on logic and reliable evidence anyway, and at the end of the day he’s a deeply unhappy, unfulfilled person screaming at people to take him seriously. He’s what happens when narcissists with thwarted ambitions get old.

                  And it’s sad, really. Take a look at his CV that he always posts. He ran for some local political office, wrote an article about libertarianism for the state Libertarian Party, modded a CompuServe forum in the 90s, did some political organization, allegedly had a successful career in marketing; a healthy, person at peace with him/herself would be content to have been involved in political activism in a fairly significant way, albeit at the Pop Warner level, and would have some good stories to tell. It would be enough.

                  But Mr. Hihn I think expected more, and, not getting it, is forced to play up his past deeds as if they make him some political guru. He wants to be honored and respected beyond what his accomplishments have earned, and, in the autumn of his life, seems to lack either the wherewithal or the desire to earn those plaudits by actually behaving like the elder statesman as which he wants to be regarded.

              6. You know who else was kind of cool when they were young and are now complete dickbag/windbag statists?

            2. That and he is a failed statist himself.

  7. I don’t support this program or Rand’s support of it, but come on:

    “So what did this program do? It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?)”

    I don’t know – why would we grant them a Visa? Unfortunately, we appear to have done so on multiple occasions, so the argument that it’s ‘dumb’ of us to do so isn’t particularly relevant when it’s provably occurred on multiple occasions.

    Plus, isn’t Dalmia a supporter of open borders? Since she wants open borders, how can she argue it’s stupid to grant Muslims Visas ‘if they’re threats?’ Under Dalmia’s preferred policy, how does she propose we deal with the issue of global Islamic extremism and avoid importing a potential class of violent, unassimilated Islamists, the way Europe has done?

    And then she says this:

    “But, then, of course, politicians are used to living in a state of cognitive dissonance.”

    Well, given that you’re the one arguing we could just not give terrorists Visas as you simultaneously argue in favor of the total opening of American borders, maybe you should deal with your own cognitive dissonance first.

    1. I don’t know – why would we grant them a Visa?

      Well if the House of Saud vouches for them…

    2. Since she wants open borders, how can she argue it’s stupid to grant Muslims Visas ‘if they’re threats?

      You asked that in public?

  8. I don’t agree with Rand on this, but it’s not totally without merit. If there’s any special profiling that needs to be done, it’s very fucking obvious exactly WHO that should be directed at. I don’t see any Latin Americans flying planes into shit or shooting up military bases.

    CNN is completely composed of blubbering fucking morons. I was watching it yesterday while they were discussing the shooting and they were doing every twisted contortion of logic possible to try to come up with some way, any way, that radical Islam had nothing to do with it. After the shooter said he did it for just that reason! You cannot fix stupid.

    One of the things we should do right away is to allow open carry on military bases.

    Open borders, no matter how good the idea sounds is not working under the current conditions for 2 reasons. Welfare and radical Islam.

    Now you even have nutcases like this who want to give interest free loans to anyone who wants to follow Shria law. So basically, under this genius plan, I can walk into a bank and say ‘Hey, dumbass, I ‘m with the religion of peace and I want an interest free loan. And they give it to me? Or what, I blow shit up?

    This country is fucked, it’s fucking fucked.

    Fruitcake Seattle Mayor

    1. The refusal of a certain set of leftists to acknowledge Islam actually is a worse religion in modern times than Christianity is pretty amazing.

      I found a pretty good Atheist youtube channel that talks about this subject all the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNNv75ARwWU

      Basically – guy calls into the Atheist Experience regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks, mentions ‘oh hey, it does seem like problems like this exist among Muslims more than other groups,’ hosts hem and haw and claim we shouldn’t talk about that because one time the KKK existed and also Crusades.

      They also immediately try to make it about race and the woman actually asks the guy criticizing Islam ‘are you white?’ as if that has any validity to his criticisms of Islamic doctrines.

      For an Atheist show, the Atheist Experience sure does go out of its way to defend a murderous religion, don’t they? Wonder why.

      1. See, if we get accustomed to actually evaluating different cultures in light of their actual actions instead of their piously claimed aspirations, why then we might take a long hard look at various Communist pest-holes and start coming to invidious conclusions. The Lefties’ amour-propre is all tied up in Socialism being The True Way, and anti-Communists all being boors like McCarthy, and having to admit that Stalin and Mao made a certain Austrian Corporal Third Best Mass Murdering Monster would destroy them.

        Not before time, either.

        1. Basing on religion is easier than basing it on someone’s culture or actual thoughts. People will fill out what religion they are but not what culture or their thoughts.
          It’s a net. Most gracious immigration policy in the world and we still complain, come on.
          Most societies understand when you bring in a crap culture it messes up the country.

          ask sweden women how great muslim culture is.

          It’s nonsense, hypothetically lets have 50 million communist from former soviet bloc and chinese come in and get citizenship. Wait 20 years, what for what’s left of the USA to be destroyed.
          I cannot tell if arrogance or ignorance on the part of the libertarian.

          You cannot have a libertarian society in a democracy when a large group think that we should use government to make life better.

          Why do liberts forget, its not anarcho-cap out there, it’s people move and can vote to tell people to bring a gun and mess your life up

      2. For an Atheist show, the Atheist Experience sure does go out of its way to defend a murderous religion, don’t they? Wonder why.

        Defending them from bigots like you.

        There’s a massive difference between anti-religious and non-religious. This lifelong atheist knows the difference is also called hatred.. That’s why I’ve never had any problem organizing even Christian conservatives for political action — they knowing I’m an atheist (they always ask!)

        1. “There’s a massive difference between anti-religious and non-religious. This lifelong atheist knows the difference is also called hatred.. That’s why I’ve never had any problem organizing even Christian conservatives for political action — they knowing I’m an atheist (they always ask!)”

          I am actively anti-religious. That is not bigotry because bigotry implies hatred of individuals. I do not hate individuals who are Muslim, like Malala Yousafzai and Maajid Nawaz who are working for an Islamic reformation, I dislike the tenets of Islam and feel, based on tons of evidence, that the tenets of Islam actively lead to the oppression of women, the brutalization of homosexuals, and the slaughter of apostates.

          I hate ideas and religious ideas are insidious. Attacking religion is no different than attacking Communism, unless you think hating Communism is evidence of bigotry.

          Tl;dr – you don’t know what bigotry is because you’re a senile moron. Hating ideas is not bigotry and it is a moral duty to defend secularism against a religious intolerance that you appear to find completely acceptable.

          1. (OMG)

            I am actively anti-religious. That is not bigotry because bigotry implies hatred of individuals.

            No comment. Boldface so passing readers can enjoy a hearty laugh.

            1. You’re so stupid it pains me. You’re like senile Bo.

              Hatred of religion =/= hatred of moderate, reasonable people who merely assert they are religious. I think the world would be a better place if there were no religion. That doesn’t mean I think religious people are innately bad (they’re not), it means I think even good religious people would be more rational and would make better decisions if they divested themselves of iron age mythology.

              There are plenty of ‘good’ Christians who don’t believe in the actual scientific evidence for evolution because of their religion. Those aren’t bad people, but they’d be better people if they would open themselves up to outside evidence rather than simply refusing to believe it because of a book written two thousand years ago.

              I know I’m wasting my time with you (as I too often do with Bo), but this is obvious, and your case of late stage Alzheimer’s doesn’t change that fact.

              1. You ever consider what a truly rational approach would do to morality. Morality isn’t rational at all.

                1. Mr. Anderson,

                  Of course it is, it just takes some forward and lateral thinking to understand why.

                  My morality has gotten me very far in life, much further than if I were some self-centered dickhead.

              2. “There are plenty of ‘good’ Christians who don’t believe in the actual scientific evidence for evolution because of their religion.”

                There are also plenty of Christians who believe in evolution per se. They have just never seen any fossil evidence of one species evolving into another species. See? They do believe in science, fossil based science is very impressive to them since evolution would be recorded in the fossilized records, right ? . May you could provide a link or two to change their mind ?

                For some that is a problem. Not for me however. I’m a Christian who thinks that God created everything and evolution was one of his tools.

            2. Trolling, trolling, trolling, Hihnhide. Don’t feed trolls Irish, dipshits gonna dipshit. This dude is a dipshit.

        2. “Defending them from bigots like you.”

          Well then, come down off your cross..

          1. Well, Islamophobia doesn’t exist

            Nobody hates Muslims as Muslims??? Nobody thinks the Quran is more barbaric than the Bible?

            and is a word used almost exclusively by apologists for radicals who want to shut down actual criticism of the Muslim religion.

            You forgot to call me a proggie. I agree criticizing the religion is not necessarily bigotry, that I’ve seen. Like I said, they’re MOSTLY those dumbass conservatives who are also islamaphobes. (not all of them)

            For example, you just called me a bigot

            Youi admit being a dumbass conservative,

            for pointing out that modern is a provably more violent faith than modern Christianity,

            Bullshit. I said it was a faceoff. There is a legitimate concern about feeding the hysteria of …. well, you.

            you don’t appear to know what either Islamophobia or bigotry actually mean.

            I need a self-confessed dumbass conservative in my life … who can neither read nor think.

            Oh yeah, I’m also not a leftist.

            (my tone is self-defense from aggression)

            1. “(my tone is self-defense from aggression)”

              Well, it’s unfortunate that you were triggered, but I’m fucking baffled as to who in the hell you are addressing with that screed.. I feel micro-aggressed against..

            2. Hihn, but you are a leftist, that much is obvious. It is a big part of the reason that no libertarian likes you.

          2. “Defending them from bigots like you.”

            Well then, come down off your cross..

            In the old south, you were among those who did nothing?
            In Germany, when they dragged away the Jews?
            In THIS country when they threw citizens into concentration camps?

            How many libertarian atheists do you figure are on crosses is the typical … century?
            And FUCK my protesting for equal rights and antiwar. Over a half-century of fighting for liberty, and I’m gonna stop for some … oh my god … a disease-bearing pathogen.? Don’t hold your breath waiting for your ideal world of Politically Correct speech.

            1. Well, if a sense of smug sanctimony wasn’t the payoff for your tireless series of ideological crusades, then get over your self. This “bigotry” of deferring opinion you denounce, is indeed a part of that liberty you claim to have championed, you said it yourself..
              “Don’t hold your breath waiting for your ideal world of Politically Correct speech.”

              1. I doubt that Mr. Hiln willl be responding to Pathogen’s post.

                Well said Sir.

                Michael you’ve been called to the carpet, any response ?

      3. Wonder why? Because they are less atheist than they are anti-christian.

        In my experience most of those people were traumatized or mistreated in some way by people who they see as conservative or christian and they falsely associate that behavior with those philosophies. The die-hard blue team partisans that I know don’t vote for Democrats as much as they vote against Republicans. That is why Rand Paul can make a full throated defense of civil liberties while Hillary Clinton takes millions in bribes as SOS, laundering the money through her Clinton Foundation and these people will still defend her in spittle flecked rants and then go vote for her.

        That is why the ones you are talking about defend Islam.

        1. Bravo!!!

          +1++elevendy one

          factor in this…….some of those you reference as tramatized or mistreated just think they were but actually weren’t

    2. “CNN is completely composed of blubbering fucking morons. I was watching it yesterday while they were discussing the shooting and they were doing every twisted contortion of logic possible to try to come up with some way, any way, that radical Islam had nothing to do with it. After the shooter said he did it for just that reason! You cannot fix stupid.”

      Oh, they’re plenty smart. They’re not stupid, they’ve just got the bellyfeel for the goodthink.

      1. No, they’re morons.

        Here’s a video of Reza Aslan, dishonest Islam apologist extraordinaire, arguing with CNN hosts about Islamic radicalism. Aslan outright lies to their faces about the state of women in multiple Muslim countries (especially in East Asia) and actually claims women have equal rights in Indonesia:

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

        You want to know how great the rights of women are in Indonesia? Well, women in Indonesia aren’t legally allowed to join the police if they’re over the age of 22, can’t join if they’re married, and are forced to undergo virginity tests when they join:

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

        They literally have cops stick their fingers up applicants’ vaginas to see if their hymens are intact. So Aslan outright lied about women’s rights in Indonesia, and the CNN hosts were too ignorant to call him on it.

        1. There’s also the minor fact that Indonesia throws people in prison if they criticize Islam and, while apostasy is not illegal, it is illegal in Indonesia to try to get a Muslim to convert to another religion. So a Christian missionary trying to preach to Muslims would be jailed.

          This is the country that hack asshole Reza Aslan wants us to pretend is ‘moderate’ while bobbleheaded CNN hosts take him at his word.

        2. “Here’s a video of Reza Aslan, dishonest Islam apologist extraordinaire, arguing with CNN hosts about Islamic radicalism. Aslan outright lies to their faces about the state of women in multiple Muslim countries ”

          My point was that Dishonesty Stupidity.

          Yes, plenty dishonest. Plenty full of shit. Not stupid.

          1. “My point it Dishonesty *isn’t* Stupidity.”

            And I can’t type.

      2. It’s a faceoff. There is legitimate concern about feeding to the hysteria of those dumbass conservatives who are also Islamaphobes.

        So when people DEMAND identifying Mulsims, are they opposing PC speech or fucking islamaphobes?

        1. Well, Islamophobia doesn’t exist and is a word used almost exclusively by apologists for radicals who want to shut down actual criticism of the Muslim religion.

          For example, you just called me a bigot for pointing out that modern is a provably more violent faith than modern Christianity, so you don’t appear to know what either Islamophobia or bigotry actually mean.

        2. Two questions.
          Will you..
          .
          1) Define: “hysteria of those dumbass conservatives”
          and
          2) Define: “islamaphobia”
          .
          A little clarification on those two points might help me understand your position

          1. He has no position. He’s doing what leftists do, which is defining attacks on the ideas within Islam and the violence of many Muslims that results from those ideas as ‘Islamophobia.’

            Islamophobia can best be defined as ‘the cruel, meanspirited act of telling the truth about Islam.’

            1. “Islamophobia can best be defined as ‘the cruel, meanspirited act of telling the truth about Islam.'”

              I guess that sounds more succinct and tactful than..

              Is?lam?o?pho?bi?a – /iz?l?m??f?b??,is-/
              Any and all perceived criticism of the paper-thin veneer of a largely plagiarized, pseudo-religious philosophy, predicated by a sociopathic 7th century warlord and slaver who purported to receive his instructions to rape/maim/kill/enslave.. directly from god..
              A term often used to stifle candid discussion on the contradictions, and shortcomings of the Islamic religion, often enough.. under threat of death.

              See also: apostate

        3. piss off, you fucking dolt

        4. So, the peons should be lied to for THEIR OWN GOOD.

          Not that I didn’t know this about you already, you immoral fucking slime, but it is good to hear it from the horse’s mouth.

    3. From the article referenced

      On Monday, Murray’s housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you’d expect, including increasing the city’s housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing.

      That’s Seattle in a nutshell. You encourage things by taxing them and slapping on more rules and regulations.

      And my wife is nagging me for us to move from a small town to that authoritarian shithole.

      1. Seattle is actually a very nice city despite the flaws in its governance. There are other things that make a city great beyond its political establishment.

        1. Yeah, like its sideways rain, asshole drivers and lack of good food. The craft beer culture it’s nice, tho.

          1. It’s neat how the “hatefully progressive state” has a strict constitutional limit on state spending growth (constant inflation-adjusted dollars per resident). Any surplus revenues must be set aside in a rainy day fund. That’s Keynesianism (gasp). I was blown away to see BOTH parties defending the fund during a downturn. Even liberals defend it. That’s why we must change the culture first.

            Plus a spending limit is only a thousand times smarter than a balanced budget amendment.

            Shorty before I left the state, when I was still the only-ever paid director of a state Libertarian Party, an amazing guy REjoined the party. He’d been active in the LP, won a nonpartisan school board race. Ran for the state House as a Republican, formed a bipartisan libertarian caucus in the House and he retired as chairman of the House Finance Committee, the 3rd or 4th most powerful official in Washington. After retirement he rejoined the LP as an actual activist.

            But the cocksucker NEVER mentioned repealing any taxes. Not even once. He even proposed making public pot smoking a minor offense like jaywalking, $10 or so fine. Because he actually talked with people he learned that one great fear of legalization opponents is that their kid would see somebody smoking a joint, So he was also a fucking compromiser of principle. Oh well.

            1. cool story, bro

            2. A friend of my brother once hurt himself after he came down from a manic event.

              Glad to see you aren’t bolding so much of your posts now Michael.

            3. something something something, after all this time we know you are a fucking idiot. well played, lmao.

      2. Every time I read some workaround for norrowing money without paying interest it reminds me of Jews who, forbidden to use electricity on the Sabbath, hire some gentile to turn lights on and off.

        Idiots. How can you claim to be following your religion when you pull stunts like that? Religion, with its all-knowing all-powerful gods and accountability in the after life, seems like the last place you should be fudging the details and following the letter of the law while making a mockery of the spirit.

        You want to borrow money? You will pay for the privilege, whether you cal lit interest or profit sharing or finding some disingenuous sneak around the rules.

      3. How about just a small town near Seattle?

        I’m in the area and looking east along I90. North Bend seems like a nice small town. But make sure to check the flood plain maps if you’re buying a house.

        1. North Bend is great, don’t recall their flooding status. If taxes are big for you, check Tukwila. The MASSIVE shopping center, vs so few residents, makes for very low property taxes. I was paying a little over $1,000 per year, on a $200,000 home (2002). It’s just off downtown, which is fabulous for dining and entertainment, including the waterfront. Low taxes vs rural peace. The only time I passed on rural.

          1. Thanks. I hadn’t considered it.

    4. Open borders, no matter how good the idea sounds is not working under the current conditions for 2 reasons. Welfare and radical Islam.

      The data is clear that immigration produces far more wealth than could ever be taken in by welfare, and radical Islam is only a military threat. It is impossible for it to threaten America by immigration.

      1. Yes, Cyto, nothing can destroy the great Murika, it’s immune to all of the world’s and history’s lessons. And we’re to take that advice from a Canadian.

        1. and apparently now wealth comes from immigration, not certain individuals with certain patterns of behavior. So if the entire nation of Greece migrates here tomorrow they’ll magically all turn into productive and wealth-producing members of society because…data.

          1. booyah, lap

      2. “The data is clear that immigration produces far more wealth than could ever be taken in by welfare”

        Link?

        And the cream of the immigrant crop (the tech folks, investors, anyone related to foreign conglomerates) do not a immigrant community make. We have lots of those people in CA – it doesn’t mean most immigrants here get living wages and middle class status.

        Medicare and medicaid will pay out 2,3 times more than what people put in, Those two programs alone makes it virtually impossible for immigrants to contribute more than they put in. I was a non citizen for about 15 years and I received more benefits than I ever put in.

        You know, some illegals and Muslim extremists do kill immigrants. If ISIS blew up a part of Koreatown , who will be the victims?

        There’s a difference between government overreach and a government GOING OUT ITS WAY to make it easier for dangerous elements to sneak into the country. And we’ve seen the results recently. Yeah, I get it, it doesn’t happen everyday. Murder is rare, but we still pay taxes for police?

      3. “Open borders, no matter how good the idea sounds is not working under the current conditions for 2 reasons. Welfare and radical Islam.”

        It goes beyond welfare.

        When you import people, you import their politics when they vote.

        From how many countries do you think we’d be importing a *more* libertarian culture?

    5. Is this Constitutional?

  9. The fact that we have increased Muslim immigration since 9/11 is utterly bizarre to me. We should have ended it. Would it be “unfair” to some of them? Certainly. But immigration should be for our benefit, not theirs. The risks are too great, and the benefits slim to non-existent.

    Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political ideology and a culture. All Muslims don’t agree on everything, of course, but the things they do agree on are all things that the US doesn’t need more of. And even if you vet every single one, there’s no guarantee that their kids or grandkids won’t go jihadi. It happens all the time.

    It’s even more stupid that we are taking poor Muslim refugees, e.g. the Somalis who are now filling the welfare rolls in Minnesota. And sending people to fight for ISIS.

    1. “The fact that we have increased Muslim immigration since 9/11 is utterly bizarre to me. ”

      There is a lot of sense and justification for letting *allies* who fought on our side in Iraq and Afghanistan into the country.

      1. or we could just send our war money to them directly, they live like kings, they get motivated to protect their new assets. it is the same price

        1. That would be cheaper, both financially and socially.

        2. “they live like kings”

          until they’re killed.

      2. That’s not the case wrt to Somalis. They were never our allies.

        Minnesotans are politically correct folks that believe in unicorns and democrats.

        In my old home town they get gov bucks to give more free shit to their pals (somalians)

        I’m guessing it won’t end well..

    2. We should have ended it.

      Piss off that’s not how freedom works. Immigrations is ALWAYS to our benefit and the risks are smaller than those borne by vaccination. The USG has neither the obligation nor even a constitutionally enshrined right to indulge your pants-shitting.

      1. “Immigrations [sic] is ALWAYS to our benefit”

        ????

        It’s ALWAYS to our benefit if we close our eyes to when it isn’t.

        1. I’m not the one with my eyes closed, or seeing things that aren’t there.

          1. No, you are. A flat statement that “immigration is ALWAYS to our benefit” is absurd to anyone who looks at reality. As I’ve linked to many times, LA alone spends over a billion dollars every year on illegals. What benefit do poor Somalis bring to Minneapolis? They get and stay on welfare and their sons go to fight for ISIS. When “unaccompanied minor children” who don’t speak English show up and have to be housed as refugees at costs higher than four-star hotel rooms, what exactly is the benefit to us?

            But let’s restrict this to Muslims: what country, anywhere, in the history of the world, has gotten better (on balance) because of Muslim immigration? I can’t think of one. Certainly it hasn’t improved France, Spain, Germany, or any of the Nordic countries. Hell, if Islam never existed and the Middle East were a mix of Christian and Jewish and pagan cultures, it would be a better place today.

            1. What benefit do poor Somalis bring to Minneapolis?

              ‘Minneapolis’ can go to hell. In any event, their labor alone is extremely beneficial.

              LA alone spends over a billion dollars every year on illegals.

              LA should stop doing that. Even if it doesn’t, the massive economic benefits dwarf that cost. Canada’s greater acceptance of immigration compared to America is one reason we’re kicking your ass in the growth department.

              But let’s restrict this to Muslims: what country, anywhere, in the history of the world, has gotten better (on balance) because of Muslim immigration?

              Every single one. They would all be poorer without it. ESPECIALLY Canada, because oil sands.

              Hell, if Islam never existed and the Middle East were a mix of Christian and Jewish and pagan cultures, it would be a better place today.

              Possible, but retrograde Arab cultural practices predate Islam. Israel’s first enemies were secular Arab socialists.

              1. Canada has like 1/100 of our immigration population (mostly Asian) and a chunk of that is international students. And since Canada’s economy is not diverse or big as the USA, their “growth” offers little to poor / illegal immigrants in this country, who won’t receive as many free stuff there.

                You ever wondered by immigrants don’t flock to Canada, where min wag is high, healthcare is free, and immigration policy is humane? Heck, why aren’t we flocking to Idaho or something, where unemployment rate is 4%?

              2. Canada’s greater acceptance of immigration compared to America is one reason we’re kicking your ass in the growth department.

                Bingo! I was sent up there in 1970 for three years. No sure this is all still true.

                I crossed the border toward Winnipeg, rented my apartment, started managing the branch, and recall not having any pressure to register.

                Easily became a legal resident. I believe there were no immigration limits at the time.

                In one or two residences, as only a legal resident, I was allowed to vote in local elections, 45 years ago (gasp). So Canada may still be ahead of us on “no taxation without representation.”

                1. My God but you’re stupid and behind the times. We can’t get an American on a temporary work assignment in Windsor “if there’s a Canadian who could do it”., need visas to go over the border for a 1 hour meeting….much less attempting to LIVE there or become a citizen.

                  I had ideas of moving to Canada permanently to play bagpipes when I was in high school in the 70’s. They’ve closed the country down since then, and given – lots of things – I don’t even visit any more, much less think of living there.

                  Get current.

              3. Speaking anecdotally (yes, I know…) Canada ain’t exactly an immigration paradise, and doesn’t have a massively open border to another country’s immigrants. Canadians are in no position to tut tut America for its immigration policy.

      2. You are a fucking idiot.

    3. You’re starting off already with a premise that a lot of people around here wouldn’t agree with.

      What exactly is “our benefit”? Who is included in “our”? Who defines what is beneficial and what is not? And no, it isn’t always common sense. You say we should have stopped all immigration, but what about a successful muslim businessman who wanted to bring his business here? There were already a lot of muslim citizens in America prior to 9/11. Is cutting off their families from moving here to their benefit? If not, are they excluded from “our”?

      Your statement about “our benefit” is collectivist and too vague to be meaningful, IMO.

      1. Papaya hates freedom and has no concept of individual rights, or cost-benefit analysis for that matter.

      2. Looking at a balance sheet is not “collectivist.” It’s only common sense to recognize that bringing in (e.g.) poverty-stricken, uneducated refugees into a broke welfare state will make that welfare state even broker.

        It’s basic economics that if you increase the supply of low-end labor, it will drive down wages.

        It’s only common sense that if some percentage of members of a religion support terror, no matter how carefully you vet them, you will get some when you allow them to immigrate. It’s an established fact that the children and grandchildren of Muslim immigrants are often the problem. The burning cars in the suburbs of Paris weren’t torched by first-generation immigrants from Algeria, but by their sons and grandsons.

        I think it’s only common sense for libertarians to oppose importing welfare cases and members of cultures that oppose basic American values (not to mention libertarian values). Anyone who believes in Islam is by definition anti-libertarian. The Koran makes the Bible look like a Rothbard tract.

        1. Looking at a balance sheet is not “collectivist.” It’s only common sense to recognize that bringing in (e.g.) poverty-stricken, uneducated refugees into a broke welfare state will make that welfare state even broker.

          Didn’t make Canada broker.

          It’s basic economics that if you increase the supply of low-end labor, it will drive down wages.

          “Basic” meaning “bastardized”. Again, didn’t happen in Canada or anywhere else, not that lower wages is a bad thing.

          The burning cars in the suburbs of Paris weren’t torched by first-generation immigrants from Algeria, but by their sons and grandsons.

          And by the sons and grand-sons of non-immigrants. Welcome to social democracy.

          I think it’s only common sense for libertarians to oppose importing welfare cases and members of cultures that oppose basic American values (not to mention libertarian values).

          “It only makes sense for advocates of freedom to fight against freedom”. Thank Papaya but we’ll leave the hypocrisy and pants-shitting to our conservative inferiors.

          1. I can’t stand “it’s common sense!” as an argument.

            You aren’t presenting facts when you say that, you’re simply asserting that everyone must agree with you.

            It’s often used by lefties…that should be your first warning sign. Common sense gun control!

        2. Again, answer: what about the muslim citizens who are already here? Are they not included in “our”? Is your proposition to deport them?

          1. Pretty obvious from his comment that he’s not calling to deport them.

            1. If they’re here illegally, deport them. But the main problem is to realize we’re in a hole, and stop digging.

    4. Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political ideology and a culture

      About which you appear to know nothing. I do know they’re pissed at our military aggression.

      1. The nativists can flip-out over non-existent ‘Islamification’ of western society and the non-interventionists can flip-out over the imaginary ‘blowback’ bogeyman. Perfect.

        1. “The nativists can flip-out over non-existent ‘Islamification’ of western society”

          Tell gay people being attacked in Paris by tear gas bombs or the gay people voting for the National Front due to their fear of Islamic violence that the issue is ‘nonexistent.’

          How about the gay mayor of France stabbed in the chest in 2002 in an attempted assassination attempt by a Muslim man, entirely because of his sexuality? How about when French news media went to the Muslim neighborhoods after that and found widespread support for the attack on the mayor because he was a dirty homosexual?

          You make these wild claims and back them up with no evidence and then skedaddle when evidence against your point is immediately and easily presented.

          You’re right though – there’s absolutely no problem with this. And, to Hihn’s point, I vaguely recall France demurring when we decided to invade Iraq, so it does confuse me a bit why Charlie Hebdo got shot up, why a French man was recently decapitated and had his head put on a fence post by rampaging Islamists, and why there have been so many other attacks by Islamists in that country.

          Surely if they’re upset by our military aggression, they should be applauding the French decision to stay out of Iraq and shouldn’t be murdering Frenchmen, right?

          1. *crickets*

      2. And if he knows nothing, you know even less.

        I always find this libertarian “split” a little baffling. I generally think it ought to be easier for good folks to immigrate here. I’m sorry to say that our (current and long-standing) schizophrenic immigration policies prevent a lot of good people in the shitholes we send our military from emigrating here. I served with dozens and dozens of Afghans who were as American (culturally) as any native citizen, in many cases better informed, and more favorably disposed to this country. Many of them laid down their lives alongside their American counterparts. But there was no way that would ever get a visa – there was a freeze on all Afghans coming to the US once the war started.

        I get the tension. Anarchists (and even staunch libertarians) assert that rights are immutable and not derived from govt (I agree). Therefore govt should never be allowed to infringe on those rights. One of these includes the right of free association. Ergo, anyone should be able to move wherever they want unencumbered by “government.” This argument is, obviously, idiotic.

        1. Even that bastion of libertarian economic and philosophical thought, Uncle Milty, knew you couldn’t have open borders with the welfare state. He said so specifically. Of course, he was also for dismantling the welfare state, not limiting immigration. But until we see one iota of evidence that is going to happen (and no one here can point me to this great libertarian moment I keep hearing about), open borders is not good. It’s better if it’s kept illegal (also saith Friedman)…until there are at least some – any – reduction in the welfare state’s giveaways. Otherwise, we’re headed for financial ruin. I do not think it racist (nor particularly anti-libertarian) to suggest we ought not to be taking on more debt at this point.

          Second, there is a security concern. [It would be hella ameliorated if we also stopped the war on drugs, but that’s another confounding problem.] One of the US government’s actual, useful, defensible functions is to protect its people, both at home and abroad. Just like we don’t let anyone just walk into the embassy grounds – there are guards – so do we guard our own borders.

          It is one of the few reasons why we give government the monopoly on violence, once Congress declares: “War.”

          1. This and some other clauses in the Constitution make me think that Congress gets to decide who are citizens and it should be a very serious and solemn national discussion about the best way to screen for the kind of people we want to come here. One of the key things should be a love of liberty. And we need to be “exporting” freedom, much more so than goods and services. It’s the whole fucking purpose for which we fought and founded this nation!

            [As an aside, I do not imagine the Founders would have thought it advisable to bring over a bunch of Tories during the debates on the Constitution. Tories were known as “people inimical to the liberties of America,” by the way. Their treatment in the post-Revolutionary War environment is interesting.]

            The TL/DR of it all is that I can’t figure out why it’s supposed to be un-libertarian to suggest that there may be legitimate reasons to screen people coming in at the gate, and the Constitution specifically committed that to Congress.

  10. “the program was a naked form of racial profiling that targeted Musims [sic]”

    Muslims are not a race, and it’s doubtful that the requirements were based on religion, as opposed to country of origin.

    And, whaddya know, when you go to what he *actually said*, that’s what you find:
    “I’m very concerned about immigration to this country from countries that have hotbeds of jihadism and hotbeds of this Islamism.”

    Also:
    “I’m for increasing scrutiny on people who come on student visas from the 25 countries that have significant jihadism.”

    So people are being singled out by the *countries* they come from, and the prevalence of Jihadism in those countries. Sounds quite prudent to me. I hope while the Soviet Union was in business, immigration authorities put extra scrutiny on immigrants originating there as well.

    If you want to make the case that the Constitution requires Open Borders, knock yourself out.

    Otherwise, if the Consitution allows for the government to control the border, there will be some administrative process involved in legal immigration, and mistakes will be made, and sometimes those mistakes will have horrible results. Grown ups accept that the world is imperfect. Grow up.

    Rand Paul isn’t for Open Borders? Great. Maybe he’s a libertarian that’s enough of a grown up to merit some support for having actual power.

    1. The US Constitution does not even clearly give the USG the right to regulate immigration.

      If you’re not for open borders, then you’re not a libertarian.

      1. Article I Section 8 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

        Thanks for playing.

        1. Naturalization =/= immigration

          1. If you have open borders, then you don’t need the government to naturalize anyone.

            If you have borders, you need the government to do just that.

      2. If you’re not for open borders, then you’re not a libertarian.

        Says Cytotoxic’s “Guide to LIbertarian Purity”.

    2. So people are being singled out by the *countries* they come from

      Only those on student visas, per your quote.

      1. His comments aren’t just about students.

        Here’s the money quote from the Breitbart article:
        I’m very concerned about immigration to this country from countries that have hotbeds of jihadism and hotbeds of this Islamism. There was a program in place that Bush had put in place?it stood for entry-exit program from about 25 different countries with a lot of Islamic radicals, frankly. I think there does need to be heightened scrutiny. Nobody has a right to come to America, so this isn’t something that we can say ‘oh their rights are being violated.’ It’s a privilege to come to America and we need to thoroughly screen those who are coming.

        1. buybuydandavis|7.18.15 @ 9:41PM|#
          Here’s the money quote from the Breitbart article

          Wrong link. I had cited from a description of the program Rand Paul endorsed, linked to its source.

          Wrong topic. “People” aren’t being sorted out by the country they come from. Only those on student visas.

  11. “Even the most ardent supporters of more open immigration policies concede that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping out folks who pose a genuine security threat to the country.”

    Really? I haven’t seen that. Exactly how does open borders do that. Seriously, I genuinely would like to know? Because if securing the border is racist, how else would you accomplish that?

    1. Open Borders doesn’t do that, but it isn’t intended to. The only intent of the Open Borders crowd is to stoke that warm glow of smug self righteousness in their bellies.

      They leave accomplishing things in the real world to the grown ups.

    2. They leave accomplishing things in the real world to the grown ups.

      Utilitarianism is for the evil, stupid and cowardly.

      1. Ignoring reality is for the evil, stupid and cowardly.

    3. Open Borders are a filter. Your version of open borders is a strawman.

      1. Open Borders sounds like the ultimate UNfilter from everything I’ve seen.

  12. “look into whether or not we could reconstitute this”

    Yeah, he’s definitely in the running for Stormfront propaganda minister. Must be really uncomfortable to always have ones panties in a bunch.

    1. ” Must be really uncomfortable to always have ones panties in a bunch.”

      One man’s pain is another man’s pleasure.

    2. “Yeah, he’s definitely in the running for Stormfront propaganda minister”

      Infowars can be much worse, but his dad has Alex Jones sewn up

  13. And does this make Rand the modern day hero of the left?

    http://www.history.com/this-da…..internment

  14. Distasteful as I find government surveillance of American citizens to be, maybe there’s a case for keeping an eye on those people who head for specific countries.

    The murderer of those five servicemen spent seven months in Jordan and Kuwait and apparently returned radicalized didn’t show up on the FBI’s or Homelander’s watch lists. So yeah, there’s a case to be made for that procedure.

    And HST, I agree with you: given the threats ISIS made, members of our armed services ought to be just that – armed.

    1. “members of our armed services ought to be just that – armed.”

      But that contradicts the Proggy goals of delegitimizing gun use and disempowering the military.

      Guns are EVIL EVIL EVIL. Job 1 is hammering home that message. Indoctrination is All, a few bodies here and there are irrelevant.

      As for the “justification” given for disarming the military at recruiting centers to “friendly them up”, that of course doesn’t pass a laugh test. Friendly them up for pacifists who don’t like guns? Not exactly the target market of the recruiting centers. I’d expect guns to actually *attract* potential recruits.

  15. As much as we might want to pretend that all religions espouse beliefs that are compatible with our core principles, it is not the case. Our immigration policies can and must reflect that. And, yes, sometimes those policies may seem to be in conflict with our ideals. But that conflict is often a mirage, just as it is in this article. It is an emotional appeal meant to distract from key distinctions, namely liberty afforded to citizens versus that of non-citizens. Reason is the defense against this particular tactic.

    1. Our immigration policies can and must reflect that.

      Reflect what, exactly? The infinitesimal likelihood that a Muslim immigrant will go crazy? So when are you going to chop your nuts off to prevent testicular cancer?

      1. Reflect exactly what I said: that some beliefs are not compatible with our core principles. Btw, I love that your analogy treats immigration restrictions as akin to cutting off a body part. How do you make it through the day with that kind of cognitive functioning?

        1. Reflect exactly what I said: that some beliefs are not compatible with our core principles.

          The irony here is immense considering that it is actually your ideas that are not compatible with freedom. Should America also exile socialists and other badthinkers? MUST SOCIAL ENGINEER FOR FREEDOM

          I love that your analogy treats immigration restrictions as akin to cutting off a body part.

          *Facepalm*

          1. Do you really not understand the difference between a citizen and non-citizen seeking entry into this country?

            But if you do understand (and are merely playing Orwellian word games), how long do you think this tactic will work? Don’t you worry that it will have a long-term impact on liberal principles? It seems like a dangerous game to me.

    2. Or, we could stop being an aggressor in the area.

      1. Do you mean geographical area (e.g., middle east) or policy area (e.g., immigration)?

        1. GREAT question! Middle East. Thanks.

          1. I intentionally avoided commenting on specific policies, personalities, etc. However, I do agree that we’re not doing ourselves any favors with some of our foreign policy. Leaving that aside, what I’m most concerned with right now is that our political discourse has become fundamentally dishonest, particularly on the left. That’s not to say that the right bears no responsibility (it does), but a significant portion of the left seems to have adopted a strategy of outright hostility toward truth and reason. That’s not good for anybody.

            1. I intentionally avoided commenting on specific policies,

              WISE 🙂

              The GOP is just as bad, in a different way. Hear me out, please. Dems are liars. Reps are stupid, totally off the rails. Free-market slogans, but no reforms.

              Medicare vouchers. Great soundbites and slogans but insane. It adds a VERY costly middleman … who adds NOTHING to the mix. It does NOT replace government but adds to it. Right? (Most or all claims processing is by private companies.)

              Plus it’s the WRONG market! Can we reduce auto prices with more competition between Allstate and GEICO? We’ve ALWAYS had competition in Medicare. Seniors pick their providers. When did we forget “skin in the game”

              A growing number of providers give HUGE discounts for cash, as much as 50-75%. How can we connect them with cash-paying seniors? I’m going fast, but if you see how POWERFUL that would be — you’re smarter than the entire GOP. Give yourself a cookie. 🙂

      2. “Or, we could stop being an aggressor in the area.”

        Or radical islam could stop murdering people overseas.

        We stopped being “war weary” years ago. Something like 60% of the Americans favor sending ground troops to engage ISIS.

        Your “do absolutely nothing until they hit us first” policy is not held dear by most Americans. Radical Islam has a history of genocide that predates the birth of America. Our mistakes may galvanized them and embolden them to action, but they were radical to begin with.

        1. Something like 60% of the Americans favor sending ground troops to engage ISIS.

          But only ISIS. And polls of a brainwashed society,

          Your “do absolutely nothing until they hit us first” policy is not held dear by most Americans.

          Your half-ass assumption is not held dear with me.

          Radical Islam has a history of genocide that predates the birth of America.

          Only because we’re so young. And because you don’t know history.
          Christians were slaughtering thousand of Jews .. who found refuge in …. MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

          The first three Crusades slaughtered thousands of Jews, estimated at 1/4-1/3 of all the Jews in Europe, Google the First Holocaust or Rhineland Massacre. When they got to Jerusalem they expelled most of the Jews and burned the other ones to death.

          MUSLIMS allowed the Jews back in. How else would they have been there?

          Learn the truth about Jews and Muslims in the middle east — until the west came in and fucked it all up. All you need to know is that it was Christians who started the Jewish slaughter … and Muslims who allowed them back into Jerusalem.

          The history is laid out and linked here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5451489

  16. Perhaps Dalmia could do her readers a courtesy by forgoing the numerous canards she has come to rely upon in her writings. Paul isn’t Graham, and never has been. Fuck off.

    1. No, but Paul has said a number of stupid things since he announced his candidacy that appear to pander to Graham’s fanboys in the electorate, people he has no chance of winning over at the same time his statements alienate people who like what he seems actually believe in.

      Worse, the voters are looking for people who actually stand for something – look at the popularity of idiots like Trump and Sanders…and Paul has done nothing but trash his own credibility on that score…he is not even pandering in a deft fashion.

      Rand Paul seems to think that if you are going to run as a republican, you have to embrace traditional republican customs like shooting yourself in both feet – truly a disapointment

      1. Is it not possible that he stands for all the things he says? “ABCDEF” & according to your analysis, C & E don’t “go with” ABDF, so nobody could possibly believe in all 6?

        That’s like the people who think radical libertarianism is an impossible mixture of beliefs, because “really” there are only these 2 ideologies that make sense, & anyone who agrees w some from 1 & some from the other is confused or trying to assemble an unprincipled coalition of diverse parts.

        1. you’re right – when somebody is running for office, and your two options for explaining a newly hatched non sequitor are “find some strongly held but previously unstated belief” and “pander in an attempt to win over people who don’t like you’, its certainly possible that the former is the best explanation….

    2. “Perhaps Dalmia could do her readers a courtesy by forgoing the numerous canards she has come to rely upon in her writings.”

      Then what would she write?

  17. The problem seems to be guys who come to the United States when they are under age 10. This guy in Chattanooga came at age 6; Tsarnaev in Boston came at age 9. We need a safe borders program that focuses on this obviously particularly risky cohort of immigrants, the ones that haven’t hit puberty yet. Then let’s focus on guys like Malik Hasan, who was born in Arlington Virginia, and Timothy McVeigh, born in Lockport NY, or guys like Dylann Roof, who is apparently not one of those evil muslims, but was committed to starting a war against a substantial portion of the population…. what kind of program can we put in place to protect ourselves from people like that?

    1. We can boost psi research, which is woefully underfunded even though it’s pretty cheap.

    2. His brother was 14, 9/11 bombers were older.

      1. Irony is clearly wasted on the boards today

  18. He wants Muslim foreigners to be required to register with Uncle Sam

    OK

    1. Muslim is not a race – either you or Paul (or both) is very confused.

    2. Don’t we do that already – with all foreigners? Isn’t this what a Visa application is for?

    1. It’s a culture, the usa has had quotas from countries for a while and they correlate highly with the countries culture.
      Americans live in denial, blissfully aware that their ancestors generally came from western europe, where many important events happened in order to create The USA.
      Just imagine the middle east getting to the USA first and writing the constitution. Tell me that would happen.

      1. Replace ‘Middle East’ with ‘Ireland’ and you see how far nativists have come since 1900: not far at all.

  19. Does Dalmia actually think there is no difference between allowing say 10,000 Somali or Syrian Muslim immigrate and 10,000 Polish Catholics or French Atheist or Burmese Buddhists immigrate? No difference in risk to the population at all? And if there is a risk, why is it the country’s duty to bear it in the name of fairness?

    There are a ton of people of all stripes who want to come here and like it or not the law limits the numbers. As long as we don’t let everyone in, why on earth would we let any Muslims in when there are non-Muslims wanting to come in? Since when do we owe Muslims anything?

    1. To many libertarians, humans are just bundles of rights and economic units. Their culture, religion, intelligence, and habits don’t matter, so it’s at least rude (and probably racist) to look at those things.

      1. Yeah. The great blind spot amongst Libertarians is the fact that not everyone is like them.

      2. Their culture, religion, intelligence, and habits don’t matter

        Strawman and irrelevant. Those things matter, they just don’t have any impact on individual rights.

        Since when do we owe Muslims anything?

        There’s no ‘we’ here. Immigration is, by default, a right of freedom of association.

        1. I hate it when you’re one of the only sane people in a thread, and I have to unabashedly defend and support everything you’re saying.

          1. You may not like it but it’s good for you.

        2. “Those things matter, they just don’t have any impact on individual rights.”

          Their culture impacts individual rights a lot when they vote.

  20. the interviewees are … asked a series of questions under oath.

    “Do you solemnly swear you will not kill infidels?”

    1. Hey, after they charge you with 50 counts of murder and use of a weapon of mass destruction, that extra lying under oath charge is a real kick in the nuts.

      1. Especially when, after all the hoopla leading up to and during the trial, it turns out they have no evidence to support the murder or WMD counts but they still get you for the ‘lying under oath’ charge.

    2. “”Do you solemnly swear you will not kill infidels?””

      Only the Old Testament actually commands that.
      Rightwing goobers to the contrary/

  21. OK, Ms. Dalmia, how would you do it?

  22. Surprised? He and his dad have ALWAYS pandered to racists and bigots. Their Phony Federalism, that individual liberties are defenseless against state power, flows from the same Liberty Hustler w see here. is the same morally corrupt premise we see here. His campaign is essentially dead. He’s competing for the Trump Goobers.

    Ronald Reagan caused major defeat for the anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade. Barry Goldwater famously warned that the Moral Majority (extreme socons) could destroy his party Pretty damn close. What will they do to our movement, when the libertarian label is already rejected by 91% of libertarians

    How many atrocities must Rand commit before Reason quits making lame excuses for the “libertarianish” candidate or “civil libertarian?” Oh wait, this is a libertarian moment. Never mind

    1. Because mentioning that Islam has a terrorism problem is just the RACIST. Apparently, you think people should only tell the truth when it doesn’t offend some protected group. Sorry, lying is never the right thing to do. If Muslims don’t like hearing the truth, they should do something to change it.

      1. Because mentioning that Islam has a terrorism problem is just the RACIST.

        Why would you tell such an atrocious lie, when my atual words are so easily visible?

        Apparently, you think people should only tell the truth when it doesn’t offend some protected group From liar to stupid in one step

        . Sorry, lying is never the right thing to do. If Muslims don’t like hearing the truth, they should do something to change it.

        What on earth are you babbling about.

        1. Correction of this:
          Apparently, you think people should only tell the truth when it doesn’t offend some protected group From liar to stupid in one step

          To this

          Apparently, you think people should only tell the truth when it doesn’t offend some protected group

          From liar to stupid in one step.

    2. Admit it, Rand Paul fucked your wife.

      1. It is not that Paul fucked his wife that makes him so angry. It is that he did so well.

        1. It is not that Paul fucked his wife that makes him so angry. It is that he did so well.

          This from a guy who opened with a blatant lie … then used that to spew a string of totally dumbfuck assumptions.

          The Paulista Cult

      2. That was your head he fucked.

        1. Burn!

    3. “Atrocities”? Hyperbole much?

      1. Atrocities”? Hyperbole much?

        Do you know what an atrocity is?

        1. I know what atrocity is. It’s every time Hinh makes a post.

    4. “He and his dad have ALWAYS pandered to racists and bigots.”

      His dad, maybe. But I don’t think he was truly racist, considering his history as a physician. His actual policies were never racist. Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, and it’s actively supported by the left.

      You sound like a bitter purist. Do you honestly think that Rand Paul will support ACTUAL racial profiling? No one will. But many reasonable people (especially outside of the USA) won’t morally object to the nation scrutinizing visa applications from regions known to be hostile to their nation. Yeah, such policy may draw lots of support from racist, but it doesn’t mean it’s racist.

      You and Cyto NEVER consider whether things that make sense on paper might not translate as well in practice. If this nation enacted open borders, the tech and other industries will be stuffed with the cream of the crop from Canada and Mexico. People WANT to come to this country. The populist crowd will lose their minds. You might say “these immigrants will create businesses”. But considering the regulatory state of this country, that won’t be easy. That’s why immigrant businesses often skirt all kinds of laws even now.

      If you want open borders to work, the country has to adopt libertarian economic policies. That’s the bottom line. The fact that immigrants don’t mooch off welfare is a moot point.

      1. His dad, maybe. But I don’t think he was truly racist,

        “and bigots”

        Their phony Federalism is identical to Orval Faubus and the southern racists. I grew up in the 50s, and can smell it at 100 yards.

        You sound like a bitter purist.

        I am bitter, but an INTO-purist. 40 years of failed tactics can do that! Today, “purist” is often a lame attack on the 40-year definition of libertarianism. If libertarians are arch-conservatives, we’re redundant. I’m the only one here pissed that the libertarian label is rejected by …. 91% of libertarians! (Cato/Zogby)

        Do you honestly think that Rand Paul will support ACTUAL racial profiling?

        The term no longer means literally race. It’s used generically now.

        You and Cyto NEVER consider whether things that make sense on paper might not translate as well in practice.

        I’m constantly attacked for the exact opposite. I ridicule both Paul’s tax plans because they’re crazy in practice.

        The fact that immigrants don’t mooch off welfare is a moot point.

        But important politically. I’m Friedmanesque, if that’s a word, on the Negative Income Tax. But I don’t recall if he included Medicaid. Plus know how to make it work. Very little of government can be truly reformed or repealed with first restructuring.

  23. “Civil Libertarian Rand Paul Becomes the Frontman for a Notorious Racial Profiling”

    When in doubt, shriek “Racism!” What other explanation can there be for not wanting Open Borders?

    More HuffPo, each and every day.

    1. “Racial Profiling” has become a generic term.
      We could profile for gender, or just look for tits.

  24. Shika brings out the nativist butthurt that’s for sure.

    1. Atrocities”? Hyperbole much?

      Do you know what an atrocity is?

      1. OOOPs, put that in the wrong place.

    2. I don’t think she reads the comments, you can stop flirting with her

      1. There go my plans for the night.

  25. Keeping Muslims out to prevent terrorism makes no more sense than not getting vaccinated because of extremely rare reactions or chopping your nuts off to prevent testicular cancer. Except it’s more evil because you are making the choice for SOMEONE ELSE, which you have no right to do.

    1. You know what? The vast, and I do mean vast, majority of crimes in the United States are committed by males.

      By this logic, we should go ahead and put them all under permanent monitoring. After all, they pose an enormously greater risk than the females, so it’s only common sense that we take the precaution.

      Oh what’s that? You don’t want to use policy against a vast swath of people when you’re one of the people directly affected? Why, it’s a good thing you claim not to be a hypocrite, otherwise, I might have thought you were one.

      1. This is a great counter to the argument that all Muslims should be monitored. You should hold onto it in case anyone ever makes that argument.

      2. I think this means we need more government programs addressing girl’s needs.

  26. The “islamic” male: We’ll do just fine without importing any of this trash.

    Oh, those characters are just fine when they’re in the minority. But look out when they get power: The women end up in slavery?the children end up in slavery?the non-“islamics” end up in slavery?.

    The “islamic” male is the world’s wrecking ball. Destruction is their only goal.

    1. But look out when they get power: The women end up in slavery?the children end up in slavery?the non-“islamics” end up in slavery?.

      Except in the Balkans, Kurdistan, Kazakhstan, etc.

      1. And one (two?) Muslim countries allowed women to vote before we did.

        1. Damn. Checking was easier than I thought. Two Muslim countries had women voting before we did. And one was a tie in 1920.

          1. Women in the U.S. Voted before 1920.

            1. COUNTRIES. 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..nstitution

        2. And that makes jihad against innocent people ok? Your position is despicable.

      2. Have you been to the ‘Stans or the Mid East? I have. They make communist Russia look like paradise. Give me a flipping break.

  27. If we’re to continue to allow the current level of immigration from Muslim countries with no checks at all to ensure that we are not importing radicals who are hell bent on transforming our society into something totally different, then we should at least open our eyes and look at how those same policies are working out in Europe.

  28. This profiling would have done exactly nothing to stop the Chattanooga massacre. As the attacker was an American citizen.

    1. Yeah, but some would be terrorists (like one of the Boston bombers) was a non citizen. And we had eyes on him in the past.

      Some people might hold radical views BEFORE they attain their citizenship.

      We don’t need to overhaul our immigration system or collect massive meta data to prevent terrorism. We just don’t have to go out of our way to make it easier for radical elements to blend in. If someone was deported 5 times in the past or was warned by other nations regarding suspicious activity, we take action.

      We just recently foiled at least one bomb plot over the 4th of July weekend. We’re kinda fortunate that these wannabe terrorists are stupid and the FBI can easily fool them by pretending to be someone else. We won’t always be so lucky.

    2. Yeaahh… and your point is?

  29. So Rand has turned out to be yet another power-hungry politician who will say anything to get elected? At least Ron Paul had some guts to stand up for his own principles. Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.

    1. One man’s statesman is another transvestite’s hitler.

  30. Someone’s slip is showing

  31. Fuck you, Reason. Rand is the MOST libertarian candidate we’re going to get. I am sick to death of stories where he’s “not libertarian enough”.

    Cosmotarians is the right label for the writers here. Trying to suck up to the left so they’ll put you in the reeducation camps last … Because pot and abortion…

    Ain’t gonna work. You want to see what sucking up to the progs will lead to look at Bill Maher, a once good libertarian who sold all his principles (except again legal pot) so that the Hollywood left would like him.

    Paul’s the best chance we have for someone with even some of our views being president. It’s be nice if the one place that didn’t trash him was the leading libertarian we site. But again, you gotta show the proggies even reason is hip to bashing Rand to get invited to the right places, right?

    I eagerly await the story about how cool Bernie is because he’d allow legal pot too. But of course only one type because who needs choices.

    1. Hard to believe that Maher has ever been anything more than a opportunist scumbag who is enabled by left wing dogma.

  32. Dunno, if Shikha’s about to bust a gut, he must be doing something right.

  33. “Cosmotarians is the right label for the writers here. Trying to suck up to the left so they’ll put you in the reeducation camps last”

    Proggy Suck Ups is the better label, IMO, as it seems a conscious program by Reason in the last year or so to build up some Proggy street cred.

  34. “Even the most ardent supporters of more open immigration policies would concede that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping out folks who pose a genuine security threat to the country.”

    The open borders crowd in these pages lends the lie to that statement.

  35. Correlation doesn’t prove causality, but looking at the rise of islamic terrorism in Western countries over the past 20 years I can’t help but wonder if it is a response to Western aggression in Islamic countries over that timespan. Perhaps that is where we need to begin to make some change, no?

  36. “It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?)”

    Careful Shikha, you can’t run interference for the open borders bunch properly by getting to the core of the matter.

  37. So what did this program do? It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?),

    Us folks in the security business understand that there’s this thing called layered security. If you have just one layer (the Visa process) and t fails, then you’re SOL. You have multiple layers so, hopefully, a failure of one layer of security is caught be another layer of security. I didn’t think this was rocket science.

  38. I have no problem with this.

  39. First of all Islam is not a race. Most would consider Islam a religion. Some like Geert Wilders don’t even consider Islam a religion but totalitarian system cloaked in religion.

    So the question is should people who belong to a historcailly violent totalitarian system with a history of slaughtering Americans both in and out of the U.S.A. be profiled?

    While I don’t believe Muslims in America should be treated any differently than any other group of people it seems wise to be extra careful regarding Muslims from countires known for their strong Jidhadist and violent tendancies toward America.who want to enter America.

  40. Yeah, why on Earth would we want to keep track of those committed to destroying our way of life?
    If you think ISIS is a minority supported operation, you are quite the fool.

  41. It is this sort of hyperbole that turns people away from libertarianism. How on earth is there anything “racist” about this? And making a suggestion is not “becoming the frontman”. And this is not arbitrary mass surveillance, rather a sensible suggestion considering the current environment.

    And Muslims are not a race. I’m Indian American, and share the same “race” of “south asian” with both the author and also many who identify as muslim. It may be cultural prejudice, and we can argue over how arbitrary & justified this is. But crying “racism” when something clearly isn’t just makes the author look like a social justice warrior type (even though she is not).

    I believe in relatively open borders .. as long as someone is coming here to study, work, research or build things we should welcome them. But how do you know they aren’t here to destroy what we’ve built, or live off our largesse w/out contributing? Therefore, in my view it is completely reasonable to do background checks & interviews before granting entry into the country.

  42. Yet another false immigration dichotomy between:

    1. Open Borders for All! (Including Islamists and MS-13 gang members)

    Or ?

    2. You are a spiteful RACIST who wants internment camps and hates Muslims and Hispanics!

    “Open Borders Fundamentalists” like Shikha Dalmia are soiling their own ideological beds.

    Pew 2007 survey on Muslim Americans:

    “Suicide bombing can be justified Often/Sometimes” = 8% US Muslims; 15% young US Muslims (age

  43. And eventually this sort of idiocy – denouncing ANY criticism of Islam and/or endorsing unlimited immigration with zero filtering, combines with political correctness and leads to the horror of Rotherham whereby:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..rpose.html

    “Misplaced political correctness by Rotherham’s Labour led council combined with a staggering culture of denial allowed more than 1,400 vulnerable girls to be routinely abused by gangs of Asian men, a withering report has concluded.

    Children as young as nine were groomed, trafficked and raped by members of the town’s Pakistani community, but a desperation to avoid being labelled as racist, meant councillors turned a blind eye to the appalling abuse for 16-years.”

    The important thing to remember is that whilst these UK councillors were successfully NOT labelled as racist, Rand Paul has now been *successfully* labelled as RACIST ? by Reason.

    Ignorance Is Strength!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.