Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Massive Immigration Contradiction

The drug war dove becomes the GOP's leading immigration war hawk violating his own commitment to civil liberties

|

There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration.

Both use the power of the state to go after the supposed perpetrators of victimless "crimes" (actually, in the case of

Ran Paul Caricature
DonkeyHotey / Foter / CC BY

immigration, the "crimes" are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries) while running roughshod over civil liberties and decimating minority communities.

This is why it's so baffling that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—who is trying to position himself in the GOP presidential field as a new kind of Republican who cares about civil liberties and minorities—wants to wind down the drug war while ramping up the immigration war.

Soon after Mitt Romney endured a historic shellacking in Latino-heavy states in the 2012 presidential election (and even committed amnesty foes like Sean Hannity admitted that the GOP had a minority problem), Paul delivered a speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce so sympatico to the plight of immigrants that the Statute of Liberty would have wept. He chastised Republicans for treating immigrants as "liabilities rather than assets," supported a pathway to legalization for undocumented workers ("If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you"), and defended bilingualism ("Republicans who criticize the use of two languages make a great mistake"). It was all very admirable.

Unfortunately, these fine sentiments were a brief interlude in an otherwise virtually unbroken record of anti-immigration grandstanding from Paul.

Paul rode to the Senate in 2010 by vigorously pushing English as the official language for all government documents and vehemently opposing President Obama's DREAM Act, which would offer a path to citizenship to kids brought to America illegally by their parents. He also supported Arizona's notorious SB1070 law that authorizes local authorities to demand proof of legal residency of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, an open invitation to racial profiling (earning him the endorsement of arch-restrictionist Tom Tancredo).

After getting elected, one of Paul's first acts was to co-sponsor a bill to end birthright citizenship to deal with the putative scourge of "anchor babies." He opposed the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill because it refused to attach his draconian Trust and Verify amendment.

This amendment demanded "100 percent incarceration for all visa overstays or illegal entrants until trial"—even if that meant effectively orphaning the American kids of undocumented parents. What's more, it required Congress to authorize that the border was satisfactorily secured every year for five years before key immigration reforms could go forward. This was an impossible requirement that allowed Paul to be for immigration reform while sabotaging it. It was tantamount to conditioning the end of the drug war on congressional authorization that drug use in America had been eliminated.

And somehow, in recent months, Paul has managed to become an even more hardened anti-immigration warrior. He is not just not opposing his party's harshness, he is positioning himself as its chief peddler in a sad attempt to reassure the base and boost his flagging polls, presumably to get a spot on this week's first GOP presidential debate.

In the wake of the Chattanooga shooting by a Muslim immigrant, the presidential candidate dusted off a plan he had floated after the Boston bombing to cut back student visas to Muslim countries. (Never mind that, barring one 9/11 hijacker, none of the Muslim terrorists in any attack actually came on such a visa.) Worse, he recommended heightened "scrutiny" for Muslim immigrants by reviving some particularly noxious aspects of the post-9/11 program called the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) that Congress killed a few years ago. It required the implementation of a biometric exit and entry system to track the cross-border movements of every man, woman, and child in America—citizen and non-citizen alike—something that's just a little shy of a National ID card that Paul opposes. Even more chillingly, it mandated Muslim boys and men to personally appear before Uncle Sam's immigration functionaries and get fingerprinted and IDed. Such surveillance on steroids—which ruined the lives of many innocent Muslims through false detentions while leading to not a single terrorism-related arrest—is a slap in the face of Paul's own crusade against government surveillance.

Following the tragic shooting death of a California woman by a disturbed undocumented immigrant, Paul introduced the Protecting American Citizens Together Act (PACT), whose smarmy name belies its draconian content. The law threatens so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to keep in custody undocumented immigrants until Uncle Sam gives a green light for their release or whisks them away. Courts have already ruled that such detentions are unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped Paul, the constitutionalist.

The sad irony is that everything that Paul is pushing for on the immigration front, he has pushed against on the drug war front. He has never been for totally ending the drug war. But he has at least pushed policy proposals that are generally in the direction of less—not more—draconian federal involvement, especially when it clashes with basic civil liberties. Not so on immigration.

He has sponsored legislation ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession convictions that are responsible for putting unconscionable numbers of black men behind bars and ruining black families. "Our prisons are bursting with young men of color and our communities are full of broken families," he has lamented. "I won't sit idly by and watch our criminal justice system continue to consume, confine, and define our young men." His Trust and Verify bill on immigration, by contrast, wants "100 percent" incarceration for visa overstayers and border jumpers.

He was the lead sponsor of the CARERS Act, which would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) so that the federal ban on marijuana does not apply to people in states where growing, distributing, or using the drug for medical purposes is legal. Yet his PACT Act would prod unwilling local authorities to partake in more draconian federal immigration enforcement, even if that means diverting precious law enforcement dollars away from pursuing genuine criminal threats.

He has also recommended diverting the funds America is spending to keep drugs out of the country and drug users in jail to shore up Social Security. But as Niskanen Center's David Bier notes, what Uncle Sam spends on immigration-related arrests and enforcement dwarfs spending on the drug war. Half of all federal arrests in the United States are for immigration offenses—with drugs as a distant second, at 15 percent. And the $18 billion that the country spends on immigration and custom enforcement is equal to all other federal criminal enforcement combined. Yet Paul, the fiscal conservative, wants to hike this spending even more.

So how can Paul be for the immigration war and against the drug war? After all, they both involve criminalization of minor offenses, militarization of the border, violation of elementary civil liberties, hyper-intrusive surveillance, and over-zealous local enforcement. The simplest answer is that the first will generate negative headlines in the conservative press and the second won't. In other words, the "new" kind of Republican is really not that different from the "old" kind. Maybe if he had gone for consistency over calculation, his campaign would be in less of a downward spiral right now because he'd be a more interesting candidate.

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.

190 responses to “Rand Paul's Massive Immigration Contradiction

  1. Shikha is the worst. Immigration and the drug war are not the same. Ending birthright citizenship should be a no brainer. Shikha doesn’t understand incentives. She really is terrible

    1. Ending birthright citizenship should be a no brainer.

      Yeah, after 230 years. On a par with defunding Planned Parenthood, promoting tent revivals and sucking up to the extreme socons. How is that an incentive?

      1. On a par with defunding Planned Parenthood…

        Because the true test of a libertarian is whether they believe the government ought to extort money from people at gunpoint to finance a group whose activities focus on political advocacy and performing activities they consider tantamount to murder.

        No one opposed to that can ever be a real libertarian.

        1. No one opposed to that can ever be a real libertarian.

          Yeah, screw Jefferson and the founders with their “unalienable rights.” You say libertarians deny individual liberty. Check a dictionary, and the 5th and 14th Amendments, in whatever order you choose.

          Then learn what libertarians means. No slogans and soundbites, what it means.

          1. If you are a libertarian and you want Plannes Parenthood funded, go fund it your fucking self. Having the government fund them with taxpayer dollars is most certainly not libertarian at all.

            1. Spare me the purity bullshit, sonny.
              If you were a REAL libertarian you’d defund the entire program — Title X family planing and Medicaid. Instead, you defend crony capitalism … as a so-called libertarian!

              1. For someone setting himself up as The One True Libertarian, you certainly get fussy over “the purity bullshit”.

                1. For someone setting himself up as The One True Libertarian

                  (snicker)

                  you certainly get fussy over “the purity bullshit”.

                  You’re quite the bullshitter. You were the purity police. You said:

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5488326

                  Because the true test of a libertarian
                  No one opposed to that can ever be a real libertarian.

                  And then we all saw your fuckup … defending crony capitalism.

          2. Yeah, screw Jefferson and the founders with their “unalienable rights.”

            Why, yes, I remember quite distinctly Jefferson writing extensively about the right to life, liberty, and government funding. The founders were unanimous in their adamancy over the right to free shit. Why, that’s why they broke away from England. The Crown was just too stingy in it’s spending of taxpayer dollars to political pressure groups.

            1. Yeah, screw Jefferson and the founders with their “unalienable rights.”

              Why, yes, I remember quite distinctly Jefferson writing extensively about the right to life, liberty, and government funding.

              HUH?
              How many times will you defend crony capitalism here?
              And you said this about Planned Parenthood.

              performing activities they consider tantamount to murder.

              Umm, what activiies does Planned Parenthood consider tantamount to murder?

              1. You misunderstood his point. He’s saying PP gets funded with money extracted from people who consider abortion murder.

                1. Good point, tantheman, “they” can mean two things.
                  But we’re back to the bullshit that they are funded for abortions.
                  And that shifting the taxpayer dollars to “favored” providers is crony capitalism.
                  Also, they claim limited government, but subsidize government clinics.

      2. Birthright citizenship did not start until the 14th amendment

        1. Birthright citizenship did not start until the 14th amendment

          Umm, what defined a citizen before that?

          Like Article 3 of the Constitution:

          No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

          The same applies to Representatives and Presidents. The 14th Amendment did the exact opposite of what you’ve been told. It defined, in effect, who was NOT a citizen … since the concept has existed since ancient Rome. Elementary.

          Just more pandering to the loony right by Rand Paul.

          1. Usually the states applying whatever standard might be contained in the relevant Naturalization Act. Before 1892, almost all naturalizations were done by state courts.

            1. What does that have to do with birthright citizenship?
              And you’re off by a century.

              Before the Act of March 26, 1790, naturalization was under the control of the individual states. This first federal activity established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at 2 years.

            2. Wrong… The Constitution gave Congress exclusive authority to write the rules of naturalization. In contrast it gave the states exclusive control over migration until 1808 when Congress could “prohibit” state rule making on migration and importation of persons.

              1. Thanks, Gatortrapper.

                SECTION. 8. ….. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

                They established the rule in1790 — the year after the Constitution became effective

      3. Birthright citizenship hasn’t existed for 230 years.
        It was improperly found within the odious 14th amendment, possibly the most destructive to our republic, ever imagined.

        1. retiredfire
          Birthright citizenship hasn’t existed for 230 years.

          Read the constitution, under qualifications for the President and House and Senate. Then solve the problem (2015 – 1789 = ?)

          It was improperly found within the odious 14th amendment, possibly the most destructive to our republic, ever imagined.

          We note your contempt for equal rights. And your laughable notions on how the constitution can be amended. Youe a Trumpster?

    2. Shikha is a progressive, not a libertarian of any sort. Why she is promoted on Reason is a puzzle to me.

      1. The LP Purity Test is a bitch. No one has ever scored over 95%.

        1. Why do you have such a hard time distinguishing between the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general?

          1. ButtliKKKer is just mad that it scored only a meager 8%

        2. I hear you score 100% on the Traitor party test.

    3. Both use the power of the state to go after the supposed perpetrators of victimless “crimes” immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries)

      Reason has hit a new low. Shikha is clearly deaf, blind, ignorant… and stupid.

      Can anyone think of someone who might disagree with her assertion that the influx of criminal aliens “has only beneficiaries”? I think the families of Mirta Rivera and Kathryn Steinle would disagree.

      Shikha apparently considers the murders by criminal aliens of American citizens… “beneficial”. Or she’s ignorant of the carnage wrought daily by criminal aliens. Or she’s just lying (as she often does).

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015…..ath-faced/
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/sa…..1436230008

      We don’t have “illegal immigration” in America. We have a foreign invasion and the appropriate way to deal with invaders is to shoot them as they try to cross the border.

      1. Mirta Rivera and Kathryn Steinle were victims of violent crimes, not immigration.

    4. Yep. We need a basic, citizenship admission test. Constitutional knowledge and American history should be emphasised.

      No matter where one is born. Once one achieves the age of majority, say 18, they can take the test. If they pass, they’re admitted to the club. If not? Oh well.

      1. human rights are not and should not be contingent on a quiz. for one thing, such a requirement would create millions of failed applicants who become stateless refugees. for another, history is not like math. there is a huge amount of room for interpretation. that is one of the reasons why many libertarians support a free market in education: state mandated history syllabi would necessarily be propaganda. making citizenship contungent upon ones ability to ingest propoganda is many things, but it is not libertarian.

  2. No surprise. Rand’s extreme social conservatism has always been the elephant in the room. All that time and work he did reaching out to the civil-liberties left was flushed down the toilet long ago. He’s backed himself into the extreme hard right. Immigration places him with the Donald but against the American people, and won’t save his ass on nonintervention. A strategy worthy of George Custer.

    Strategically he has no viable market left, no coherent coalition, and that’s fine. Rand Paul can do a LOT more in the Senate, where he’s developing the rare ability to forge bipartisan alliances on targeted issues.

    1. When you say “immigration”, I’m pretty sure you mean to say “illegal immigration”, but you never know…

      Either way, you’re wrong, of course, regarding polling. Trump’s taken a populist position on illegal immigration. Polling shows most Americans agree with the same positions he’s taken.

    2. Border control is not extreme social conservatism. It is one of the major characteristics of a nation-state. What you really mean, is that he is not a anarchist, and on that point you are correc.

      1. Border control is not extreme social conservatism

        Umm, denying birthright citizenship is VERY extreme social conservatism, Added to his other socon pandering.

        1. What a disingenuous statement. As if anyone is trying to stop ALL birthright citizenship. What needs to end is this bullshit where some illegal sneaks over a nanosecond before giving birth to exploit the 14th amendment in a way that no one EavER intended.

          Seriously, you know the difference, yet you defend this bullshit. Are you truly that obsessed with open borders?

          1. What a disingenuous statement.

            No, you screwed up.

            Seriously, you know the difference, yet you defend this bullshit. Are you truly that obsessed with open borders?

            I’m obsessed with truth. Intimidate somebody else.

          2. Any woman that can make it across the Chihuahuan desert in the ninth month of pregnancy has the kind of genes that we should welcome into the fold. Seriously, how often does this actually happen? I have a vision of Suicidy tossing and turning at night, dreaming about Mexican women sitting on top of the border wall with their legs spread, dropping hordes of infants onto US soil.

        2. “Umm, denying birthright citizenship is VERY extreme social conservatism, Added to his other socon pandering.”

          So by this reasoning, 99% of the world is some Socon paradise, and engages in “war in immigration” by denying birthright citizenship to babies born in their soil. Got it.

          I’m Asian, and at the top of my head, no major Asian nation allows for anchor babies. Amnesty (as discussed in the American context) is a dead issue, since the vast majority of the ethnically homogeneous population will be against it or aren’t interested in it. Rand’s immigration position has some red flags here and there, but it’s only cause for concern for the purest of open border activists.

          Shikha doesn’t make a distinction immigration and drug war because she refuses to recognize that citizenship is not a “civil right”, no more than healthcare is a civil right. A nation state cannot be considered as a business that just wants to hire whoever they want, for myriad of reasons. When you punch out work, you go home. When you arrive at country, that IS your home.

          I hear about cops shooting people for drug related incidents all the time. But how many people are shot to death because they “look like illegal alien?” The undocumented aliens in this country have 10 times the protection and ears from the sympathetic media compared to drug users.

          1. “Umm, denying birthright citizenship is VERY extreme social conservatism, Added to his other socon pandering.”

            So by this reasoning, 99% of the world is some Socon paradise, and engages in “war in immigration” by denying birthright citizenship to babies born in their soil.

            You should avoid using the word “reason.”

            I’m Asian, and at the top of my head, no major Asian nation allows for anchor babies.

            Which Asian nation were you born and raised in?
            How should our Constitution better reflect Asian nations?
            Ted Cruz was an anchor baby citizen in Canada.
            Britain recognized anchor babies until 1983.

            Amnesty (as discussed in the American context) is a dead issue, since the vast majority of the ethnically homogeneous population will be against it or aren’t interested in it.

            Gallup says 88% of Americans support a path to citizenship.

            Shikha doesn’t make a distinction immigration and drug war because she refuses to recognize that citizenship is not a “civil right”,

            You clearly have no idea what a “civil right” is. And you shamelessly distort her words.

            But how many people are shot to death because they “look like illegal alien?”

            How many people are shot to death because they “look like” a drug dealer?

  3. When you say “immigration”, I’m pretty sure you mean to say “illegal immigration”, but you never know…

    You have difficulty with sentence structure?

    Polling shows most Americans agree with the same positions he’s taken.

    Umm, no. 55% favor more immigration or the same. Only 44% favor a reduction. 63% believe immigration is a net positive.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/Immigration.aspx

    Oh yeah, 88% favor a path to citizenship for the illegals now in the country.

    1. If those numbers were true then the Congress would ram through their immigration bill in a second. But instead they run and hide since they fear being voted out of office.

      1. If those numbers were true

        They are true. Gallup? Don’t forget, they’re all squabbling for the extreme socons in the primaries, less than 15% of the total electorate. And the socon LEADERSHIP has yet to EVER influence a nomination. Except Dubya and look what a disaster that was.

        1. They must be polling the ignorant slobs who hire out child care and so called “day laborers” and are afraid that if they come down on the side of enforcing immigration laws, their own children might have to mow the lawn or do the laundry.

          Why was it again that Rome eventually forbade slaves to wear clothing that identified them as such? The fear of organized revolution against their masters?

          1. They must be polling the ignorant slobs

            Because the poll results are incon-veeeeeeeen-yent?

            The fear of organized revolution against their masters?

            Everyone was either a slave or master?
            Roman slaves were not allowed to wear togas.

    2. These polls are so dumb it is beyond belief.

      Simple poll

      Two Questions.

      1. Citizenship for llegals

      2. Enforce current immigration laws

      80-20 every time. Enforce the law

    3. The first question on the link:
      Increased 22%
      The same 33%
      Decreased 41%
      The results could say, using a similar measure as yours, that 74% want it decreased or the same.
      Those poll numbers don’t convey what you are trying to sell.
      In virtually every one, the strongly disapprove and disapprove, combined far outstrip the approve and strongly approve, put together.

  4. “Half of all federal arrests in the United States are for immigration offenses?with drugs as a distant second, at 15 percent.”

    An open border with tariff system would actually bring in revenue, reduce enforcement costs, and provide us with the free market benefits of immigration. Most immigrants pay smugglers anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000 to make it across the border. By paying the tariff immigrants will have the incentive to work hard, save money, and go back home once they make enough. The alternative is having federal thugs putting otherwise peaceful people in cages on the taxpayer dime.

    1. Not a bad idea at all, provided you keep an eye on what public services are being used and adjust the tariff to compensate. The only issue I personally have (and I think this was Rothbard’s thing) is that social safety net payments make up the largest chunk of federal spending, and I’d hazard a guess that they take up a significant chunk of state spending. Currently, legal immigrants become net contributors to revenue in something like ten years on average. Studies conflict as to whether illegal immigrants in the status quo are a net gain or loss in terms of revenues gained versus benefits paid, and there’s no sure way to predict how open borders will affect that. My gut is that you’d have an adjustment period where the economy was all over the place and then it would wind up about where we are today in terms of revenues to benefits.

      Honestly, I’m more concerned about immigrants from Latin America bringing their preference for Bolivarianism and statism with them.

      1. Your last point is key. You can’t allow people to immigrate faster than they can assimilate to the idea that rights are inherent, government exists to enforce them and the use of government to take away rights and pass out spoils – as happened in too many of these folks’ native lands – is a corruption of the government our founders gave us.

        1. You must live in CA. The ultimate “entitlement” state.

      2. Their social mores are pretty contrary to ours as well.

        They don’t honor education. Their treatment of women would make even a male chauvinist pig blush. Their love of the Church over all else is mystifying. Thier tutelage in government corruption says volumes.

        Why does anyone want them again? Why can’t we just make our kids mow the lawns, take out the trash and wash the cars like we used to?

        How did manual labor become Manuel labor and completely acceptable?

        1. “Why can’t we just make our kids mow the lawns, take out the trash and wash the cars like we used to?”

          Because we’d rather spend our time more productively making more money and it makes more sense to pay someone else to do it. Manuel does a good job and shows up every day. Your kid doesn’t cut it, no pun intended.

      3. “Honestly, I’m more concerned about immigrants from Latin America bringing their preference for Bolivarianism and statism with them.”

        Beggars can’t be choosers. Make them net contributors before they even step into the country. No safety net, no standard deduction, no tax exemption, and mandatory Obamacare enrollment without subsidies. They’ll resent free shit people even if they are not allowed to vote at all. Obama failed to deliver reform when he had the trifecta due to pressure from big labor and the stupid party is taking all of the blame.

        1. Why not just line them up and shoot them?
          They pay the same taxes as we do, but with far less benefits, so you want to tax them MORE than … yourself?

          1. It’s easier and more cost effective to build a wall around the welfare state than to build a wall at the border.

    2. An open border with tariff system…

      Interesting idea, I might have to subscribe to your newsletter. I think you’d still have the problem of people who are unable to afford to pay the tarriff continueing to sneak across, but if the tarriff undercuts the Coyote’s prices then you could make a huge dent in the human smuggling racket.

      I’d add to that some way to ensure that non-citizens aren’t able to apply for and recieve welfare benefits. I think that’s what tends to stick in craw of a lot of anti-open borders libertarians: that a lot of the immigrants would end up on the dole. The only problem is there’s no good way to make sure they’re not able to get the benefits without violating everyone’s privacy through some kind of national ID card, which is also a non-starter for libertarians.

      The only idea I’ve ever been able to come up with is to do away with the welfare system as we know it and inmplement some kind of negative income tax to boost the take home pay of the poor, and while we’re at it also do away with the federal minimum wage (state and local gov’s could still set their own as they see fit). Then free up employers to hire whoever the hell they want, and there wouldn’t be this huge welfare system that people would feel like the immigrants are taking advantage of. Of course, I can hear the proggies screeching already, which is why something like this could never happen.

  5. No difficulty at all. You’d be laughed out of a proper debate, of course. No candidate, as far as I know, is against legal immigration. So to state the issue as “anti-immigration” is a dishonest attempt to frame the argument in a manner in which you can’t lose. A strawman.

    Trump’s illegal immigration stance:

    1) Secure the borders. Stem the flow of illegals.
    2) Path to citizenship.

    Both positions perfectly in line with American public opinion.

    Quote:
    “You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.”

    1. 2) Path to citizenship.

      He snared you in his bullshit. HIS path to citizenship starts by deporting every illegal in the country first, which is NOT what the term means to most everyone else … including the 88% I cited above, when you first claimed that the American people agree with Trump. 100% – 88% = 12%

      1. As is usual with the communist’s arguments, they mislead, massively.
        The qualifiers for the “path to citizenship” – “if they meet certain requirements over a period of time, including paying taxes and a penalty, passing a criminal background check and learning English” – are ones that sane people know will never be enforced but people don’t want to be looked upon as “heartless” so they go along with the charade.
        How about asking: It is fair that those who jumped the line be allowed to stay while those who are in the process of doing it according to our laws, must wait outside the country?
        The questions in that survey were clearly skewed towards open borders – something that will result in the death of this nation.

    2. “Trump’s illegal immigration stance:

      1) Secure the borders. Stem the flow of illegals.
      2) Path to citizenship.”

      And, almost everyone else’s is “Give them citizenship. We can’t ship them out.”

      Which only creates more interest in illegal immigration in the belief that, we’ll cave again and grant them all immunity.

      Anyone who’s raise a puppy or a child understands this.

      The immigration reform and control act of 1986 didn’t fix anything. It only encouraged millions more to head for the U.S. where, nothing is ever enforced.

      And here the Libertarians always claim they aren’t anarchists but believe in the rule of law.

      1. 1) Secure the borders. Stem the flow of illegals.
        2) Path to citizenship.”

        Trump does NOT favor a path to citizenship as the phrase is actually used. He’d make them all leave the country first, which would cost an estimated $150-200 billion. But Gallup reports 88% of American support a path to citizenship INSIDE the country, with varying levels of restriction.

  6. Shikha Dalmia

    You are an idiot, or perhaps a tool.

    Normally, I see libertarians taking a position opposed to national borders and national citizenship and recognize them as being on the anarchist side of libertarianism. You however, are all about government involvement in your favored causes (like keeping government involved in marriage) but opposed to any form of immigration control.

    So, I guess I must correct myself, you are just another progressive.

    1. (like keeping government involved in marriage)

      You said that in public? Ever hear of equal rigthts? 9th Amendment? 14th Amendment? Do you know what “unalienable” means?

      Normally, I see libertarians

      Imposing your bigotry by force? Huh-uh.

      1. Nothing to do with bigotry. Everything to do with state power.

        Marriage is primarily a religious institution. What interest does and should the state have in that? Do I really care if my neighbor has 14 husbands? Notice I did not identify my neighbor’s gender.

        The interest of the state in marriage goes back to early human history and religion. Suppressed peoples – namely the Israelites – saw their only way out of slavery was to raise an army larger than their oppressors. In order to do so, they needed to procreate with an emphasis on male children (warriors). The rest as they say, is history. And the bias in most religions.

        At this point in time, the state has no interest. And it should not. Thus, there should be no debate about government involvement in marriage. The state’s position should be limited to “that’s nice”.

        Why does the state confer “benefits” on married couples?

        Why shouldn’t the state address us each as individuals?

        Think of the overall benefits to liberty and freedom of that approach.

        1. Nothing to do with bigotry. Everything to do with state power.

          Which part of “equal rights” is so befuddling?

          Do I really care if my neighbor has 14 husbands? Notice I did not identify my neighbor’s gender.

          Relevance?

          The interest of the state in marriage goes back to early human history and religion.

          Religion had NOTHING to do with a purely private agreement.
          It was not one of the seven sacraments in Catholicism until the 1500s.

          Why does the state confer “benefits” on married couples?
          Why shouldn’t the state address us each as individuals?
          Think of the overall benefits to liberty and freedom of that approach.

          It’s been several decades since I stopped wasting time on Ivory Towerism

          The point,. which you manage to ignore is that as long as the state is involved there can be no discrimination. Read the Constitution.
          ,.

  7. End the war on drugs, deregulate the health insurance, and health care industries. Make it easier for people to start businesses, and private schools. Then when the prices drop immigration becomes almost a non issue, even with the welfare state.

  8. Immigration further increases the size of the group in which redistribution takes place. That futher violates freedom of association, since you are forced to associate. If there was no welfare state in place, this would be no problem. There’d still be some public property not necessarily captured under the “welfare” rubric, for instance infrastructure like streets. Immigrants are likely to use streets, so allowing them depends on how public property is to be governed — by majority vote (immigrants not yet being owners)?

    1. That’s based on negative liberty and property. One should note that citizens are prevented from associating with immigrants, so apparently negative rights clash here, because of positive rights. Assuming that public property is rightful, its restriction to citizens (assuming the majority of owners votes that way) does not infringe upon the negative rights of citizens who would like to have immigrants over. The remaining conflict then is over positive welfare rights. If immigrants were allowed to waive these rights (or not get them at all), there’d be a way around that. But would they have to pay taxes? One might think they’d have to pay taxes for everything but the welfare system. So, fees (only) for infrastructure (public property: whatever owners decide)? (What about police and military?) It looks like you end up with a rather libertarian set-up for “immigrants”, whereas the original citizens have no such choice.

      As utilitarianism, that analysis would require a whole lot of work more. I doubt it’d be fruitful.

      1. . One should note that citizens are prevented from associating with immigrants,

        HOW?

        1. Looks like a problem of unclear formulation. Read that as “people who would like to immigrate, but are not allowed to”. You can’t have immigrants over for tea when they are not allowed into the country. Why might they not be allowed to? Because (1) the extension of positive welfare rights (imposed redistribution) to more people violates freedom from association (presumably of people who don’t want to have tea with immigrants); (2) because immigrants need access to public property (streets) in order to meet their hosts, and the majority of owners declines (depending on mode of governance of public property).

          1. Looks like a problem of unclear formulation. Read that as “people who would like to immigrate, but are not allowed to”. You can’t have immigrants over for tea when they are not allowed into the country.

            Uh… by definition, if the are not here (e.g.: “people who would like to immigrate, but are not allowed to”) then they are not “immigrants”.

            If they are here, then they are “immigrants”… and… I surely may associate with them and invite them over for tea.

            1. See.More, you are sort of right. But since you have the definition (as quoted), what I’ve outlined should work for you. Feel free to blame me for casually using the word “immigrants”. (Seems to be common usage, by the way. As in “keeping immigrants out of the country”. Call it shorthand.)

              A note on definitions, I see no inherent reason to call people who immigrated (restrict it to migration) immigrants, but not those who are in the process of immigrating, or those who have the firm wish to immigrate. Try comparing it to “baseball players”.

          2. Your “public property” argument is perhaps more amusing than framing it as free association. They pay the same taxes we do, and with fewer benefits.
            Would we say convicts are primarily denied freedom of association?

            Would you charge a toll for non-citizens to use our roads and sidewalks?

            You never explained HOW I’m prevented from associating with immigrants.

          3. M. Hihn, you completely ignored the negative liberty aspect (freedom from association regarding imposed redistributive systems).

            Independent of that, who are “they” that pay the same taxes “we” do? “Legal immigrants” (citizens?), “illegal immigrants”, …? Please elaborate.

            Prisoners are denied negative liberty, including freedom from association. (If they agreed to the rules that bind them, and these are applied correctly, then there is no violation of their rights.) They are also denied the right to associate. What do you – singular – consider “primary” here?

            Regarding streets, I have no definitive preference. It makes some sense to internalize costs, which means charging people for the use of stuff. That’d be the public goods/free rider domain. Considerations of business, including tourism, can mean it’s wise to not directly tax others for the use of streets. See utilitarianism, Kaldor/Hicks.

            1. I’ve explained in what way some are prevented from associating with immigrants (note the definition I provided). Not sure whether “HOW” is some special term, different to “how”, or whether it simply marks some cognitive peculiarity of yours. If you consider my explanation deficient, criticize it in detail. The only decent point left for misunderstanding seems to be “prevented”. This is not necessarily about you personally, it’s much broader. Making immigration illegal reduces the number of immigrants. In consequence, some instances of association, some tea parties of citizens and those who were caused not to immigrate, which would otherwise have taken place, do not take place — are prevented. This especially holds true when you (correctly) consider “association” to capture long-term relationships, and not just single short instances of social contact.

              1. I’ve explained in what way some are prevented from associating with immigrants (note the definition I provided).

                I’m still laughing at it.

                You can’t have immigrants over for tea when they are not allowed into the country.

                Murder is not allowed either. But IT HAPPENS!!!!

                Are you aware there are 11-12 million of them here … even though they’re not allowed. (gasp) You’re done ….

            2. M. Hihn, you completely ignored the negative liberty aspect (freedom from association regarding imposed redistributive systems).

              (yawn) Has nothing to do with your screwup on “public property.”

              Independent of that, who are “they” that pay the same taxes “we” do? “Legal immigrants” (citizens?), “illegal immigrants”, …? Please elaborate.

              Who are we talking about …. in the same paragraph?

              hey are also denied the right to associate. What do you – singular – consider “primary” here?

              ummm, main, most significant.
              The judge pounds his gavel and says, “You are here sentenced to a five year suspension of your Freedom of Association.”

              it’s wise to not directly tax others for the use of streets.

              I knew that.

              See utilitarianism, Kaldor/Hick

              Now apply that to your bizarre “public property” analogy.

              Too many mind games. You’re seem fixated on mental masturbation.

              1. Aha. If I cared, I’d try to figure out whether you’ve formally been declared head idiot at reason.com, or whether it’s tacit understanding.

                There’s no public property analogy. It’s straight up public property.

                Speaking of stupidity and analogies, laws against murder reduce the number of murders. The same goes for laws against immigration (service for head idiot: reduce immigration). See what I wrote about prevention. Laws that mandate taxes don’t make every person pay taxes. They do make a considerable number of people pay taxes.

    2. That’s based on negative liberty and property. One should note that citizens are prevented from associating with immigrants, so apparently negative rights clash here, because of positive rights. Assuming that public property is rightful, its restriction to citizens (assuming the majority of owners votes that way) does not infringe upon the negative rights of citizens who would like to have immigrants over. The remaining conflict then is over positive welfare rights. If immigrants were allowed to waive these rights (or not get them at all), there’d be a way around that. But would they have to pay taxes? One might think they’d have to pay taxes for everything but the welfare system. So, fees (only) for infrastructure (public property: whatever owners decide)? (What about police and military?) It looks like you end up with a rather libertarian set-up for “immigrants”, whereas the original citizens have no such choice.

      As for utilitarianism, that analysis would require a whole lot of work more. I doubt it’d be fruitful.

    3. One is not “forced to associate”. One does so to reap the benefits of redistribution if in fact one has no libertarian leanings. Altruism does actually exist. There are those who wish to have real fairness as opposed to the current PC determinations of fairness based entirely on economic status.

  9. There is no civil liberty or any right to movement on any property you don’t own. All movement must be done with the permission of the property owner.

    The present system is socialism in that it forces property owners to allow people to use their property without their permission

    Borders are a central part of freedom since they define the ownership of property

    1. Borders are a central part of freedom since they define the ownership of property

      Except, that’s not really true. The country isn’t “our property”. Rather, the land held by an individual is his own property. Now, to the extent that illegal immigrant is trespassing on private property, there’s a clear case that property rights are being violated. But, I think you’d be hard pressed to make the case in any kind of rational manner that an illegal alien on someone’s property by the invitation of the owner is violating the rights of some third party because the country is somehow that third party’s “property”.

      1. But individual property has borders. Government has usurped those borders and combined them together. If you reject government and its borders do not throw out individual property owners borders.

        The problem with the open borders types is they refuse to see how much of their open border world is based on government and its power to force people to allow others to use their property against the will of the property owner. They complain about government restrictions on movement but ignore the far greater use of government force to allow people to move.

      2. Well stated.

      3. You want public US land to be owned by all world citizens. You think any person in the entire world should have a positive right on that land.

        I think this is extremely disingenuous to begin with (because they can’t eat, sleep, earn on public land in the long-term) but its international hippie collectivism.

        Who owns public US land? What person or group? All world citizens?

        1. You want public US land to be owned by all world citizens.

          No, I want public US land to be privatized, but that’s beside the point. If you’re going to make some land “public”, then you don’t get the private property claim on that land.

      4. The country isn’t “our property”.

        It isn’t? Whose is it, then? Of course it’s our property.

        1. Dreamer.

          Right near my workplace is a National Wildlife Refuge of certain fame. It’s not open to the public. But, top men scientists and federal employees with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service have restricted access.

          http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Anti…..mplex.html

          So, go ahead and tell me about “our property” again.

          1. Right near my workplace is a National Wildlife Refuge of certain fame. It’s not open to the public.

            Bullshit

            http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Antioch_Dunes/about.html

            So, go ahead and tell me about “our property” again.

            Got any real examples?

    2. The present system is socialism in that it forces property owners to allow people to use their property without their permission

      HOW?

  10. NO ONE SAY ANYTHING MEAN TO POOR LITTLE SHIKHA. YOU LEAVE HER ALONE!

  11. Ahhh!! The “educated” folks here are discussing “the US’s immigration problem.” It’s kinda funny that most commenting here excoriate the “masses” for buying into the media’s garbage, and yet here you all sit feeding at the exact same trough.

    The problem is not in the US. It’s in the shitholes these people come from. Of course, no one from the media will say that. It might upset some third world jackass of a dictator/elite. As long as there are hell holes like these Central/South American countries around, there will be illegals here. They’ll walk on razor blades to get here….especially if you’re giving them free shit.

    These shitholes are the problem, and you ain’t gonna fix a problem if you won’t talk about the problem. “All them damned trees keep gettin in the way !!! I don’t think there IS a forest!!!”

    1. US immigration problem….giving em free shit and encouraging this stampede. My bad.

      1. What free shit? They pay the same taxes as everyone else, but are denied most benefits.

        1. If they don’t get benefits why do most have government id’s

          1. If they don’t get benefits why do most have government id’s

            Did YOU need to prove citizenship to get a drivers license?
            Which taxes don’t they pay and which benefits do they get?
            Didn’t we fight a revolution over Taxation Without Representation?

        2. This is the great lie. I work in local government in CA. Often have to deal with social service agencies. Their bread and butter is illegal immigrants.

          I once had to attend meetings at La Clinica De La Raza – the clinic of the race for those of you that don’t know Spanish. Almost entirely government funded these days. The County is their biggest supporter.

          What shocked me, and I’m no neophyte to this game, was that the meetings were conducted in Spanish – I was the one that need an interpreter: That the ESL non-citizens there were so freely critical of “la negras” but the interpreter didn’t bother to tell me – I have a limited ability in Spanish but do understand it to a great degree – that they were blaming the blacks in our their community for being the trouble makers and not them, the “undocumented workers” for all of the problems. And, the educational posters on the wall showing the states of Mexico.

          But the final straw for me was a woman who complained about the $1 bus fare being “too much” because she had cinco ninos and she had to ride the bus with them every morning to ensure their safety as her “undocumented” esposa needed the car to get to the HD parking lot for his day labor endeavors. As we left the meeting, she put her youngest in a car seat in the front of a brand new, Ford Expedition and then whipped out her cell phone to make a call.

          Yeah, illegal immigrants don’t get any benefits.

          1. What I will say in their favor is, they aren’t demanding of these services. They are just taking advantage of what our benevolent governmental agencies are knocking themselves out to provide for them.

            And, they have pretty much indicated to me that they think Americans are the niceest people on earth for doing this. Because back home, they’d have no car at all, earn in a year what they earn in a week here and fear a corrupt government.

            But, they are uneducated, third world refugees with no idea of what the social cost of their invasion of CA really is. They are like small, spoiled children.

            Where I see them really getting cheated is, if they stay where they are, fight for individual liberty, there is a good chance their corrupt, caste system countries will turn into the kind of system we once thought the U.S. was.

            But, since we cater to them here, there is no incentive for them to fight for their rights at home. They expend their energies coming to the land of milk and honey instead.

            And yes, I know the libertarian argument against incentivizing them to stay put and fight.

            1. What I will say in their favor is, they aren’t demanding of these services. They are just taking advantage of what our benevolent governmental agencies are knocking themselves out to provide for them.

              One more time: they pay the same taxes but are denied many benefits (not all, duh)

              They are denied Medicare and Social Security .. actually subsidize the two programs. Yet, if low-income workers, then FICA is the biggest tax they pay.
              (Average income tax rate at $50,000 AGI is 8%)

              Denied Medicaid, except limited emergency services IF they enroll.
              Denied Obamacare.

              You were saying?

          2. Yeah, illegal immigrants don’t get any benefits.

            Nobody said that and 3/4 of your “reply” had nothing to do with it.

            I once had to attend meetings at La Clinica De La Raza – the clinic of the race for those of you that don’t know Spanish. Almost entirely government funded these days. The County is their biggest supporter

            Shameful
            Of you.

            was that the meetings were conducted in Spanish – I was the one that need an interpreter

            (laughing)

  12. Illegal immigration creates a population that lives in a shadow culture, even less inclined to deal with authority and answer questions honestly than the general population. They are subject to blackmail and more subtle forms of pressure. This is bad for them and also bad for us.

    Opening the borders is a non-starter. The idea may have merits, but they are beside the point; it won’t fly. Amnesty is not the answer, since it completely fails to address the underlying issues. Closing the border would be expensive as hell.

    I say we conquer Mexico, and make it a protectorate. We could ship Chris Christie and the rest of the New Jersey Political scene down to govern the place, thereby improving the level of governance in two places.

    1. Yup, I’ve been arguing for invading Mexico for yrs.

      1. Turnabout is fair play.

      2. The US has had Puerto Rico for over a hundred years and its a soon to be bankrupt basket case. Whey do you think the US would do better with Mexico.

        1. Because they speak a different lang…
          Uh, because of their fiery Latin popula…
          Um, because they are in a warm and temperate…
          Because they have effectively been under one party control for the last…
          I give up. Can’t we just invade, take their shit and then leave? Do we gotta do “nation building”?

          1. Because we can outbreed them if we really try!

  13. Rand Paul now has zero shot at becoming President. Between the Mouth Trumpet grabbing all the headlines and the Libertarians claiming he’s not Libertarian enough, any momentum Rand had is now gone.

    It’s a shame too. I’ll never understand my fellow Libertarians. If communists and hardline socialists can say Bernie Sanders is the closest to my ideals so he’ll get my support, why can’t Libertarians do the same for Paul?

  14. (actually, in the case of immigration, the “crimes” are not only victimless, but have only beneficiaries)

    Really. No strain on school districts, hospitals, or infrastructure? Absolutely no negative effect on property values or wages?
    If you want to argue that the net benefits of immigration outweigh the negatives, go ahead. But the quoted sentence is disingenuous, at best.

    1. The quoted sentence is a religious chant; having no basis in fact. Like “Violence never solved anything”. No thought went into that sentence, and no argument is expected as the writer settles back in a glow of moral superiority.

      *spit*

      At this point, I frankly decline to believe the pronouncements of EITHER SIDE of the immigration argument (It isn’t a debate. Debates are at least superficially polite), at lest as far as the economic effects of illegal immigration are concerned. And I am, therefore, in favor of actually trying to enforce the laws we have, so that we can perhaps tell what those effects might be and form some basis for rational consideration. Also, the laws are never going to change as long as they are not enforced and everybody pretends that they are.

      1. Triggered to post this quote re: “violence never solves anything”

        “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

        RAH – Starship Troopers

        1. It is possible to say, truthfully, that violence will not solve a given problem a way we would like. Not that the imbeciles who say “Violence never solves anything” mean that. What they mean is “I have no rational argument for my position, so I am going to assert a morally superior absurdity and pretend that wins. Please, please, please don’t call me on it.”

    2. And she thinks it’s so good, she’s used it twice in a week now. She is such a sack of shit.

  15. Why can’t the left half at Reason make the simple realization that people aren’t against immigration, they are against illegal immigration?

    Must Reason always ignore this to make their arguments? The answer is yes. They just can’t make the same arguments otherwise. That is why they are always careful not to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

    So why they argue apples, the rest of us are arguing oranges. Is it any wonder they convince so few?

    1. “Why can’t the left half at Reason make the simple realization that people aren’t against immigration, they are against illegal immigration?”

      Because if they admit the core part of that – that the illegals are already criminals, or at a minimum rule breakers – they will have to actually think instead of emote. I expect better of Reason, but I suppose everybody has a few holes in their head. I know I do.

      Still, it’s annoying. I happen to think that legal immigration should be one hell of a lot easier, and maybe tiered. Want to come in and do casual labor, pay minimal taxes, get minimal benefits? Sign this shot form. Want to come in to study, get a solid job, play taxes, vote, collect benefits, have kids? Step this way to the interview room, and take this sheaf of paper with you to fill out as we go. Want to to come in, preach jihad, live off you rich uncle in Riyadh? Well, you may do so, but we ARE going to watch you, and the minute you let the current of your rhetoric carry you to advocating acts of war, then these large, nasty looking gentlemen from the Department of War will want to have a talk involving fingernails and kneecaps.

      1. And that has essentially been Rand’s platform all along. Increase legal immigration and work visas to cut down on illegal immigration. That this is akin to Rand supporting the drug war in Sikha’s eyes is probably the stupidest take in the history of the internet.

        Sikha is worse than Nikki, and I don’t even know why Nikki is the worst, but evidently she is.

        1. Oh, come on. Maybe the stupidest in Reason’s history on the ‘net, but the ‘net as a whole has some truely thundering idiots loose on it.

          1. And Tony is right downstream, proving your point.

          2. Fair enough. Stupidest on the ReasonNet.

  16. This is why Trump is doing well–the fact that lurkers will surface here on this issue and this issue alone. Cleansing the American gene pool of excess melanin is really of paramount importance to a lot of people. I am all for pragmatism, that’s what I do. But if I have to read “we have to make an exception to liberty so we can forcibly expel millions of people whose skin color and language I don’t like because blah blah blah” one more time I might vomit.

    1. So it’s all due to racism. There aren’t any other valid arguments, eh? What disingenuous bullshit.

      1. Not if you want to be a libertarian.

        1. Are you an actual parrot hooked up to some Dragon Voice Recognition software?

        2. Really? Tony’s going to revoke my libertarian card because I believe importing millions of ignorant and illiterate peasants is unwise.
          Damn, now I gotta go back to the DMV and change my party affiliation.

        3. Tony:

          Have you ever heard the term “model minority”.

          There is a reason for that. And, it has nothing to do with skin pigmentation or language skills. It has a lot to do with aspirations and assimilation.

          I’ll take you more seriously Tony when you accept two or three illegal immigrant room mates with excess melanin into your own home.

      2. disingenuous bullshit.

        Disingenuous bullshit is its middle name.

        1. Yet here everyone is proving me right that it’s all racism.

          1. No they aren’t, you mendacious cunt.

    2. LA County Most Wanted

      http://probation.lacounty.gov/…..mostwanted

      1. Oh please. You surely aren’t saying that correlation equals causation?

        After all, the other side has been telling us for years that certain minorities are overrepresented in the prison population because the system is broken. It certainly isn’t because they have any proclivity for committing crimes beyond the “norm” for the non-minority populations.

        In the meantime, illegal immigrants break the law every day and spill over the boarders. But, we aren’t supposed to worry that they don’t give a shit about laws in the first place.

        What are other first world countries doing about illegal immigration?

        What are my rights in Mexico, Central or South America if I jump the border and take up residence without express permission?

        How do our friends to the north deal with such infractions?

  17. Try it like the EU. They even have immigration without migration; witness the bailout of Greece, subsidies, centralized law, standardized living standards. (As a side note, they now want to dictate that prizes for digital content be the same in the entire zone, and argue that this increases the freedom of companies.)

  18. Where is the violent criminal empires created by illegal immigration? You can’t compare the drug cartels to the coyotes.

    1. They are often the same people.

  19. An illegal crashes the gate drops a kid and now qualifies for taxpayer goodies. And the idiots that write this BS are supposed to be for limited government.

    Mass immigration does two things.

    1. Grow government

    2. Grant more people access to my wallet.

    1. Therefore you are equally concerned with citizens having babies and think government should intervene to stop them.

      1. I think the welfare laws – precisely designed to proliferate the Progressive Plantation – should cap the number of kids you can have while on the dole, instead of encouraging a large brood.

        Progs are the eugenicists. They started that way before the turn of the 20th century having maintained that status throughout.

        1. I’m the eugenicist because you want to have the government dictate how many children people can have?

          1. Not what I said you dishonest fuck…and you know it. I want the gov to stop paying for every kid somebody has while on welfare. If parrots had cunts, you’d be a mendacious cunt.

            1. But what did the kids do wrong?

              1. What did the parents do right? What did the fetus do wrong? This is fun!

                Stop fisting kittens, Tony.

                1. Well Tony, have you? Have you stopped fisting kittens?

              2. The issue is incentives for poor welfare recipients to have an unlimited number of kids that then cycle back into the institutional, multi-generational welfare system – The Progressive Plantation. Built for one purpose, keep blacks in poverty, under their thumb, control their voting habits, etc.

              3. Ah. It’s not for the poor. it’s not for the elderly. But, it’s for the children.

                Man Tony, you must work in government. Where everything we do is sugar coated for one of the above…or the environment.

                Surely no one can be against any of those. Right?

                1. Man Tony, you must work in government. Where everything we do is sugar coated for one of the above…or the environment.

                  Umm, read what he responded to.

            2. Why are all woodchippers bullies and aggressors?
              (a rhetorical question)

              1. WAHHH !!!!! WAHHH!!!!!

                My Name is Craybaby Hinh !!!!

                WAHHHH !!!!!

                You are all GOOBERS Because you will not do as I say !!!

                WAHHH !!!!!

                1. You are all GOOBERS Because you will not do as I say !!!

                  I only say that in defense of aggression, Goober.

          2. How is not paying for your kids dictating how many you can have? As usual you confuse your sexual fantasies with arguments.

            Stop fisting kittens, Tony. They don’t like it.

            1. Umm, read what he responded to, instead of your knee jerking so violently at Tony’s name

        2. should cap the number of kids you can have while on the dole, instead of encouraging a large brood.

          Is that why Rand Paul wants to take away their family planning and contraception?

          1. Not Giving = Taking

            So says the One True Libertarian!

      2. Americans are citizens. Bad enough I have to subsidize them. Now why on earth would I want to subsidize gate crashers?? I have great CPAs and I’m still in the top bracket. Wealth wise in top 1 percent. Income wise in the top 5 percent.

        Open borders people are idiots. End of story

        1. Immigrants are a net boon to the welfare state (because they are younger than the American population on average). That argument is simply, totally false. Come up with something new.

          1. A net boon in the same manner as a tapeworm is a net boon to its host, you backwards imbecile.

          2. The entire tax payments of the average illegal will never pay for the schooling of their children, let alone medicaid, food stamps, etc. They’re tax drains.

      3. Nope. But handing out free birth control might be a good start for all concerned.

        Retroactive birth control might be effective as well.

  20. Single issue twits like Dalmia are so fucking tiresome. We get it, you don’t like anyone who opposes open borders, but would it kill you to write about something else for a change?

    1. Could it be, she’s biased? Does she have a dog in this fight?

  21. San Francisco’s sanctuary law is currently that they will not hand over illegal immigrants to the Feds unless there is an outstanding warrant or if the criminal has committed two violent felonies in the past seven years. You can be a habitual DUI offender, bike thief, burglar, etc. and SF wants to keep you here. How the fuck is that somehow a libertarian friendly policy? I don’t see it as one.

    1. It’s not.

      I work in local government. We are funded with federal, state and local funds. There is often a conflict between what we must do based on federal fund requirements and what we must do based on state fund requirements. The standard of conduct is “fed trumps state”.

      I don’t get where individual cities think they can flaunt federal laws. Immigration laws are clearly in the federal domain. Not even a libertarian can argue that away.

      I wouldn’t be opposed to the feds taking action on cities like SF. Cut their funding. Send in the national guard and remove their leaders if they offer sanctuary to felons.

  22. “There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration.”

    Yes. Yes there’s is. A massive difference. This article, and its premise, are utter bullshit.

  23. Wow. What does Reason publish her? Anything having to do with immigration sets her off like a bottle rocket.

    1. Wow. Did you miss the latest Rand Paul flip-flop?

      1. And that invalidateshe my point, how exactly?

        1. It’s crybaby Hinh. He is not a Libertarian. He is a Democrat, and a Progressive.

        2. And that invalidates my point, how exactly?

          It ridicules it. The flip-flop is massive. so you seem to have missed that,

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

  25. To be a real Libertarian you need the secret decoder ring and a Ludwig von Mises rookie card.

  26. Shikha, you remain a lying sack of shit.

  27. This is utter nonsense. There is no rational comparison between the war on drugs and controlling immigration.

    Rand Paul isn’t anti-immigration, he is anti-illegal-immigration. There is a substantial difference. If the concept of a “nation” means anything (that’s an entirely separate discussion) it means the right to control who is permitted to enter the country. And as long as we have a welfare state (which isn’t likely to change any time soon) it is essential that we exercise some degree of control over who enters and thus becomes eligible for the myriad government-provided benefits. To do otherwise is fiscal suicide. As much as I would like to return to the era of open borders, than cannot happen until we dismantle the welfare state.

    This is not a “civil liberties” issue. No non-citizen has any right to enter the country, or to expect to receive all of the benefits which those legally here enjoy. Abolishing the concept of “anchor babies” should be an easy place to start, as there is no constitutional basis for it.

    No one disputes that we need to reach some consensus on how to deal with the illegals already here. But a necessary starting point is acknowledgement that those persons are here illegally, that we have every legal and moral right to control who crosses our borders, and that whatever accommodation is ultimately reached with them is purely at our sufferance. Articles such as this one do nothing to help.

    1. Membership has its privileges.

    2. But aren’t the prohibitionists against only the drugs that happen to be illegal this week? Ask yourself why anyone would want to enter a country run by politicians who are 99&2/3% communists, fascists and prohibitionists? One reason is that they struggle under 100% communism, fascism and prohibitionism. People are literally murdered every day all over the world because American politicians export laws that says this is good, this is freedom! They must confiscate bank accounts at gunpoint under a communist manifesto tax code to please the US Congress. The alternative, your Congress believes, is to have Satan himself take possession of their minds and bodies just like the Demon Rum or worse. Never forget that US immigration REVERSED when Herbert Hoover enforced the prohibition and tax laws of predominantly Methodist Congressmen and Senators.

  28. Wow another article smashing Rand. The one hope we have who is a serious step int he right direction

    1. “We?” Paleface? Has the LP been banned too?

  29. The author needs to go back and study his history, current budget reality and his Milton Friedman if he thinks illegal immigration is “victimless”.

    “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.”

    Who, exactly, pays for the 47% of illegals collecting US government benefits looted from the working citizens?

    1. Membership has its privileges.

  30. The first civil liberty is for a people to be secure within their own borders from foreign invasion.

    1. Exactly. See my example of the ancient Greeks throwing misfits outside of the city/state walls.

  31. “laws against murder reduce the number of murders.”

    Are you so sure?

    Social mores are more powerful than any laws. Laws are written in books and enforced via a legal system that moves rather slowly.

    Social mores are much more powerful and timely than that. The penalty in ancient Greece for crime was not prison in all cases, but being an outcast from the city/state where you were on your own with no protection via “the state” or “the system”. Many historians have pointed out the effectiveness of such measures.

  32. … so vote Hillary!

  33. I am disappoint in the lack of logic in this article. I absolutely agree the laws should be changed to get easy to get green cards. However, until that happens, we need to enforce current law. The same is true with the drug war. The laws need to change, but until they do they need to be enforced. Civil liberties are protected if the law is followed. If the law is not, your liberties are not as well.

    1. Whaddaya mean “we”, paleface? You and the looter politicians I voted against in their unverifiable elections? I have to snitch, rob and kill to make stick their usurpations?

  34. “There is no functional difference between the war on drugs and the war on immigration”

    WRONG

    One interferes with citizens rights to put what they want in their own body. The other interferes with NON Citizens to move into this country. This isn’t the same thing at all.

  35. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  36. Rand Paul has encouraged better enforcement, or “closing the border” for a very log time. He says that the borders have to be closed to address the illegal immigrant plan, for the illegal immigrants that are already here. I think that is a very reasonable approach.

    I addition to that, without closed borders, we are also more susceptible to get a terrorist attack from our southern border. Why is it that we don’t have as much trouble on our northern border?

  37. Trespass is a victimless crime? If I’m not damaging your furniture, and the lights are on anyway, why shouldn’t I be left alone even if I’m in your house?

    Drugs don’t violate any commons, illegal immigration does. If all propery were private, all such would be tresspass. As is, “public” property is under the common ownership of all CITIZENS, so someone here illegally is trespassing.

  38. Presumably those libertarians who believe immigrant is a rights issue and not a property issue have no doors on their houses and no fences around their yards so anyone can come into their home at any time. If not they are hypocrites.

    1. you are a fool.
      who owns the border again?
      public property is a socialist concept, not a libertarian one. the public, the people, etc are platitudes of jingoist morons and cynical inner party members – the public does not exist. what does exist is the state, which is who owns the border. principled libertarians reject the use of force against individuals by the state.

  39. I quickly lose all hope for this country when I see how many “libertarians” believe that papers please racialist citizenship policies enforced by kidnapping millions of people and putting them into camps is a neccessary component of a “free” society.

    there truly is no political movement in this country that rejects the arbitrary use of state force.

  40. Reading this is more what you expect from the NY Times instead of Reason. I might not agree with Rand’s positions 100% but I would guess I agree with him more than with the author of this article. And, I certainly believe that anchor babies shouldn’t be allowed.

  41. Excuse me? Republicans were happy to apply extrajudicial death sentences for beer and wine containing half a percent alcohol (and thrilled to apply them for “drugs”) up until 1933. George Holy War Bush repeatedly urged the death sentence for grass “kingpins.” His moronic offspring pushed asset forfeiture–urging GOP and Dem statehouse politicians to confiscate the homes of individuals not convicted of anything in prohibitionist “sharing” (armed robbery) until the entire economy collapsed–all of this to shore up some picayune dry killers. The real military-industrial complex has a solemn task of wiping out threats (e.g. foreigners). If those foreigners were let in “we” would have to bomb them here instead of over there. Not even the one (that’s 0.3%) token fake libertarian wants that!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.