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…

  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. “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.

    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 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.

  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…

  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. 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.

    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.

      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.

    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. 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.

  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”.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

  22. “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.

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

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

      1. There go my plans for the night.

  24. 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.

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

  26. 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.

  27. 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?

  28. 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.

  29. Someone’s slip is showing

  30. 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.

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

  32. “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.

  33. “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.

  34. 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?

  35. “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.

  36. 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.

  37. I have no problem with this.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. 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.