Election 2016

Hot August Fright: The Month Republicans Lost Their Minds Over Immigration

From deporting U.S. citizens to electronically tagging tourists, the top 14 Republican presidential candidates each said something insane about immigration this month

|

Some day soon we will look back at this month, and say "Yeah, I remember my first beer." ||| CNN
CNN

With the news this weekend that that Scott Walker is flirting with building a wall on America's border with Canada, that Chris Christie wants to track foreign visitors like FedEx packages, and that Bobby Jindal is staying awake at night mumbling about how "immigration without integration is not immigration; it's invasion," what started as a trickle of migration-policy critiques has ended with a flood of full-blown restrictionist mania: August 2015 is threatening to go down in history as the month the Republican Party lost its collective mind over immigration.

Following the lead of Donald Trump, the big-government, recently-Democrat reality-TV sonofabillionaire who rocketed to front-runner status in part by calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" and proposing to deport American-born children, the rest of the 2016 GOP presidential field has systematically dismantled any muscle memory of a Republican Party fronted by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who in 1980 rejected border fences, framed illegal immigration as a problem of prohibition, and advocated "open[ing] the border both ways."

Immigration is a difficult set of overlapping policy challenges that no major party or president has managed to get right, despite repeated promises (as illustrated by the Republican and Democratic party platforms since 1980), and despite periodic stabs at legislative reform and the long-term ramping up of security resources along the southern border. It's an issue that defies easy solutions (for Reason's pragmatic ideas about increasing the number of legal visas, embracing a guest-worker program, and establishing a non-citizenship green card category for qualifying illegal immigrants, click here), but that hasn't stopped the GOP field from promising child-like simplicity to voters frustrated by the persistent presence of 11 million U.S. residents who aren't legally authorized to live here.

Donald Trump, for instance, has described building a 2,000-mile wall as "very easy." Current runner-up in nationwide polls Ben Carson has repeatedly stressed that "we have the ability" to fix immigration (including, in his view, affixing a "seal" on every border), but that "we just don't have the will." If there is one idea animating the GOP base so far in this campaign, it's that political outsiders will be able to impose their immigration will on a kicking and screaming political elite.

But do these candidates' depictions of the problem and proposed solutions reflect reality and logical thinking? In a word, no. Meanwhile, even more so than in previous presidential cycles, this debate has dragged not just the increasing number of restrictionists but also the dwindling ranks of immigration moderates into bizarro-world rhetorical territory.

The following is a selection of crazy immigration quotes from the top 14 GOP presidential candidates during the month of August. Rank and percentages come from RealClearPolitics' rolling average of national polls from Aug. 11-25.

Just can't get enough of that face. ||| NBC
NBC

Name: Donald Trump

Rank: 1 (25.7%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 16, on NBC's Meet the Press, talking about families with Amerian-citizen children of illegal-immigrant parents.

We're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together….But they have to go. But they have to go….They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country or we don't have a country.

Arguments against: We continue having a country—one that still dominates all comers in economic and military strength—despite the presence of 4 million or so U.S.-citizen children born to at least one illegal-immigrant parent. And while the forcible detention and physical relocation of otherwise law-abiding U.S. citizens does have legal precedent at the Supreme Court (in a case that has never been officially overturned), Korematsu vs. United States is widely and correctly seen as a low point in both the constitutional and moral history of the country. There may also be some logistical and expense considerations with increasing the number of citizen-relocations by thirtyfold over the 1940s.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Ending birthright citizenship, making the E-Verify database mandatory for every employee-employer agreement nationwide, forcing Mexico to pay for a full-length border wall on threat of impounded remittances and increased fees for most categories of visas for Mexicans, instituting a "pause" in the issuance of new green cards.

Yes, let's. ||| ReformImmigrationForAmerica.org
ReformImmigrationForAmerica.org

Name: Ben Carson

Rank: 2 (11.0%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 19, at a rally in Phoenix.

[W]e need to seal our borders—but not just the southern border, the northern border, the Pacific border, the Atlantic border, every border.

Arguments against: An estimated 40 percent of the current illegal immigrant population in the United States arrived in this country legally, making them impervious to sealant (short of some sort of physical tracking device harmonized with an expulsion mechanism for when their legal status expires; about which see Chris Christie).

Other dubious policy suggestions: Revoking the citizenship of anyone involved in voter fraud, ending birthright citizenship, using lethal drone strikes on border-tunnels, building a border wall.

They're crafty, I'm telling you. ||| Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

Name: Jeb Bush

Rank: 3 (9.7%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 19 and 24, on the Bill Bennett radio show and in a press conference, respectively:

If there's fraud or if there's abuse, if people are bringing, pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement….That's the legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, "anchor babies," as they're described, coming into the country. […]

What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed, where there's organized efforts, and frankly it's more related to Asian people coming into our country having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship.

Arguments against: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Since its 6-2 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 117 years ago, the Supreme Court has held that:

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

Emphasis mine. There is no "fraud" escape clause in either the constitutional or constitutional-interpretation language, and there is indeed no (to my knowledge) legal definition of birthright citizenship fraud; you're either born here or you're not. And there is this additional consideration about those dastardly "Asian people" dropping babies here and then going back home with their American spawn, as spelled out provocatively by Shikha Dalmia:

[B]irth tourist babies go home to be raised during their most expensive phase — only to possibly return to America after their 18th birthday, during their most productive phase. In effect, birth tourism allows America to outsource the raising of its citizens, resulting in enormous savings, given that it costs a whopping $300,000 to raise a child in a middle-income family in America today.

Other dubious policy suggestions: A "biometric exit system" that would electronically track every time a human being of any nationality leaves the country, and a crackdown against "sanctuary cities."

Si? ||| Fox News
Fox News

Name: Ted Cruz

Rank: 4 (7.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 25, on The Kelly File, in answer to repeated questions over whether he would support deporting Amerian-citizen children of illegal-immigrant parentage:

Megyn, I get that that's the question you want to ask. That's also the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask. They focus exclusively on 12 million people. […]

It is a distraction from how we actually solve the problem. You know, it's also the question Barack Obama wants to focus on.

Arguments against: It's a yes-or-no question, one every potential deporter-in-chief should answer, particularly though not only those, like Cruz, who are against birthright citizenship.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Mandatory E-Verify, biometric entry-exist system.

In the running for my Booby Prize, along w/ Christie and Jindal. ||| YouTube
YouTube

Name: Scott Walker

Rank: 5 (6.7%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 30, on Meet the Press:

Some people have asked me about [building a wall on the northern border] in New Hampshire. They've raised some legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks, that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.

Arguments against: The Canada-U.S. border is 5,500 miles long. A very small percentage of illegal immigrants come from Canada, and most of them likely cross into the country legally (meaning, a wall would not affect them). Border walls, in addition to their substantial price tags, require massive governmental intrusions on private property (including Indian reservations), and a host of environmental/structural challenges that come with erecting barriers in riparian habitats featuring protected, migratory species. Walls increase the likelihood that illegal crossers will stay in the country, rather than leave when the work dries up.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Mandating E-Verify, doing something about birthright citizenship (exactly what depends on which day of the week you ask him).

If only we'd had E-Verify! ||| CNN
CNN

Name: Marco Rubio

Rank: 6 (6.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 6, GOP debate:

I also believe we need a fence. The problem is if El Chapo builds a tunnel under the fence, we have to be able to deal with that too. And that's why you need an e-verify system and you need an entry-exit tracking system and all sorts of other things to prevent illegal immigration.

Arguments against: El Chapo is indeed a cautionary tale about how building a wall will not prevent all incursions across the southern border, but drug kingpins have squat-all to do with forcing all American employers to check a national database to make sure that all of their American employees are American, which is a terrible idea that Rubio has long advocated.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Making English the official language.

Now THAT's a Festering problem! ||| DirtBunny.net
DirtBunny.net

Name: Carly Fiorina

Rank: 7 (5.0%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 27, at a press conference in Le Mars, Iowa:

[T]here's an industry that has been set up in L.A. where Chinese women come over on a tourist visa and have a baby. This abuse has been going on for a while. We need to stop it. […] We need to stop abuses like this by enforcing the laws we have. […] But instead, as unfortunately what happens too often in a political season, everybody tries to distract people from festering problems that have never been solved to talk about something new. Well, let's talk about birthright citizenship. Let's talk about something else. We have to fix these problems. It's ridiculous that women are coming in and doing this. We know it's happening. Let's fix it.

Arguments against: See entry for Jeb Bush.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Making E-Verify mandatory, moving to "close down" sanctuary cities.

I mean, unless you're otherwise law-abiding. ||| Monopoly
Monopoly

Name: John Kasich

Rank:  8 (4.7%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 19, interview with PBS:

[W]e have to finish the wall and then make it clear, if anybody comes over that wall again, they have got to go back. There should be no debate about that. […] And then I think, with the 12 million, they're here. If they have been law-abiding, then I believe they should have a path to legalization.

Arguments against: While Kasich has among the most reasonable immigration approaches in the field, the Ohio governor has a glaring logical problem here: You simply cannot "make it clear" that wall-jumpers "have got to go back" when you're also making the opposite clear to previous wall-jumpers. This is one of the many ways that immigration policy is hard!

Other dubious policy suggestions: Making English the official U.S. language.

Shockingly, this did not come from a restrictionist website. ||| RushPassport.com
RushPassport.com

Name: Mike Huckabee

Rank: 9 (4.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 28, on the Hugh Hewitt radio program:

I would [support a law restricting birthright citizenship], because I think when you see even advertisements in China, advertising essentially "birth tourism," where people are able to purchase packages so they fly to the U.S., have their baby in the U.S. so it has dual citizenship, and these aren't people who are impoverished, looking for a Medicaid payment. These are very wealthy people who are coming here so their child will in essence be put a foot down and say, "I have American citizenship," dual citizenship, American and Chinese. And I just don't see how we can sit back and say that that is perfectly OK.

Arguments against: In addition to the refutations contained in the Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina entries above, Huckabee's position is a brazen flip-flop from his stance in 2010.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Tracking legal visitors like FedEx or UPS does.

Still true. ||| Reason
Reason

Name: Rand Paul

Rank: 10 (3.7%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 19ish, interview with NBC News.

[I]f you have an open border you can't have birthright citizenship.

Arguments against: Since Paul is using this argument to buttress his ongoing support for legislation asserting "that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship," it's worth noting that the border, in fact, is not "open." There are more than 650 miles of fencing between the U.S. and Mexico; deportations have climbed steadily for most of the 21st century, and the wait times for legally qualified immigrants who "stand in line" are so long (more than 20 years, in some cases) that the end of that quip might as well be "and stay out!"

Other dubious policy suggestions: "100 percent incarceration for all visa overstays or illegal entrants until trial," and "Before issuing any visas or starting the legal immigration process, we must first ensure that our border is secure."

I mean, if you make it SEXY…. ||| CoolTattoos.us
CoolTattoos.us

Name: Chris Christie

Rank: 11 (3.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 29, at a campaign event in New Hampshire:

At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It's on the truck. It's at the station. It's on the airplane. Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them….We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in, and then when your time is up, whether it's three months or six months or nine months or 12 months—however long your visa is,  then we go get you and tap you on the shoulder and say, "Excuse me, thanks for coming—time to go."

Arguments against: Human beings don't have bar codes (yet!). The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement needs to obtain a warrant before attaching a tracking device to people's property; such a precedent would almost certainly apply to the physical bodies of legally authorized visitors to the United States. Additionally, having the government monitor every movement of a human being is antithetical to the basic concept of liberty.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Huge fines for employers of illegal immigrants, putting an "end" to sanctuary cities.

How the Texas border was secured. ||| Twitter
Twitter

Name: Rick Perry

Rank: 12 (1.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 3, Manchester, New Hampshire candidate forum:

I know a little something about securing the border—as a matter of fact, last summer, I looked in the president's eye when he came to Dallas, Texas, and I said 'Mr. President, if you don't secure the border, Texas will.' That's exactly what we did. We sent our Department of Public Safety, our Texas rangers, our Texas Wildlife, putting them literally in the river. And we also deployed our Texas National Guard. And because of that effort we saw a 74 decrease in the number of apprehensions that were occurring on that part of the border. You can secure the border.

Arguments against: Wait, the border with Texas is secure? PolitiFact Texas rated Perry's claim as "Mostly False," due to the impossibility of quantifying the "because of that effort" part of the quote (federal border-patrol efforts and seasonal fluctuations also surely played a role). If that sounds nitpicky, maybe it's because Rick Perry has stood out for being comparatively non-awful on this issue.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Ending "the notion of sanctuary cities."

True story: Santorum's relatives back in Italy are a buncha commies. ||| The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast

Name: Rick Santorum

Rank: 13 (1.0%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 20, speech at the National Press Club:

Let's face it, the problem with illegal immigration can mostly be solved immediately because it doesn't involve changing the law, it simply requires the current laws to be enforced!

Arguments against: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble estimated in 2011 that it costs an average of $12,500 to deport an illegal immigrant. Multiply that by 10 million (Santorum has proposed allowing some illegal agricultural workers to conditionally stay), and you get north of $125 billion. On cost alone, let alone other logistics, there is nothing "immediate" about that process.

Other dubious policy suggestions: Reducing legal immigration by 25 percent, ending birthright citizenship, making E-Verify mandatory, establishing a tracking system for legal visitors, ending sanctuary cities.

Methinks he doth assimilate too much. ||| Pinterest
Pinterest

Name: Bobby Jindal

Rank: 14 (0.3%)

Most insane quote: Aug. 6, at the first GOP debate:

We must insist on assimilation. Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. We need to tell folks who want to come here they need to come here legally. Learn English, adopt our values, roll up your sleeves and get to work. I'm tired of the hyphenated Americans and the division. 

Arguments against: America is widely understood to have the best track record of assimilating immigrants of any large country in the industrialized world, regardless of whatever any given president or presidential candidate is insisting on or tired of. Suggesting that our assimilation process is threatening to become an "invasion" is grossly inaccurate demagoguery.

Other dubious policy suggestions: "Prosecuting" sanctuary cities, supporting English-only laws.

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.

234 responses to “Hot August Fright: The Month Republicans Lost Their Minds Over Immigration

  1. Chuck, we either have a country or we don’t have a country.

    This has my vote to replace “In God We Trust” on US currency.

    1. We need to secure our borders and mandate that Latino’s learn English. A common language is what binds a nation together. We can’t all just go off speaking dozens of different languages. The failure of many new immigrants to learn English is what causes our melting pot to break down. I have nothing against Latino’s, but we need immigration that is orderly.

      1. meh

        1. You must learn English to assimilate dawg!

          1. Strangely this nation didn’t fall apart back in the 1800’s when various nationalities came to our shores and got along in their Little Italy’s and Chinatowns.

            Those communities somehow integrated and I don’t see why spanish speaking enclaves cannot do the same. The vast majority of people in the US speak English, and over time so will the people immigrating here. We don’t have to force anything.

            1. We weren’t giving them welfare and using tax dollars for services that enabled those behaviors either.

              1. Excellent point, Suicidy. Finally, someone that agrees with me!

            2. The Progressives had not yet ruined Public Education amd demanded that all government forms be printed in all the languages anybody might speak. There was strong incentive to learn English.

              There is still incentive. Barring some form of media stardom, financial success rides on speaking and reading English. But the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives, being racist, LIKE the idea of a permenant non-english-fluent underclass.

              That or their Education policy makes no sense whatsoever.

              1. Everything they do makes perfect sense if you understand their goal: Power.

                They will dress it up as anything that sounds good, but power is their end game. If it were not, they would have abandoned their idiotic policies and programs when they realized they do not work.

          2. And yet, somehow the Swiss have managed to stay together culturally, socially and politically with not one, not two, not three, but FOUR official languages for centuries.

            1. Multiculturalism worked even better in Yugoslavia, Syria, and Iraq.

              1. Because Iraq is a better analog to the US than Switzerland.

                Talk about weak.

      2. I don’t know, I live in LA where the locals speak dozen of different languages and everyone seems to get along okay.

          1. I was gonna make an ironic point about immigants learnin demselfs the language, but I thought it would be too dickish.

            1. Its not dickish to ask immigrants to learn our language. They would demand that you learn Spanish if you moved to a Latin American country.

              1. True. It only becomes dickish when you start to act like Quebec and all it’s language laws that squish civil liberties.

                1. I’m not acting like the people of Quebec!

                  1. I didn’t say or insinuate that you were. I was just…saying what they do vis-a-vis laws is dickish.

              2. No. They wouldn’t. American retirees move to Costa Rica and Ecuador and other countries in Latin America. There’s no legal requirement in those places to learn Spanish.

                1. The Costa Ricans are very nice people, and would never say anything, but I could tell they are not very impressed with people if they don’t at least attempt to learn the language.

          2. Now, there’s no reason to get nasty. I’m sure he didn’t mean to offend the “Latino’s”.

        1. In LA, the melting pot is clearly broken. Nuf said!

          1. I guess, if you assume a melting pot is what everybody wants. But some people just want to be able to live their lives without having to assimilate into someone else’s idea of a national culture.

            1. That’s a really excellent point.

              1. LynchPin1477:

                You know I’m right on this issue! Just admit it, you agree with me!

            2. If they come hear they must learn English and assimilate, dawg!

              1. I wouldn’t say “must”. “Should” is a better word.

                The difference between libertarians and most ideologies is that “should” doesn’t mean there needs to be a law for it.

                I do agree though, unchecked immigration slows assimilation and puts a cultural strain on communities. Didn’t anyone ever see Gangs of New York?

          2. Huh? It’s broken… because?

            1. bassjoe

              It’s broken because they are not assimilating!

      3. Immigrants have always preferred to conduct business in English. They learn enough to get by.

        Their children are almost always fluent in English and bilingual.

        *Their* children (the immigrants grandchildren) usually only barely communicate in the language of their grandparents. They are effectively English-only speakers.

        This has been true since the mass immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries and it never destroyed our melting pot.

        I do agree with orderly immigration, though. That’s why we should get rid of most (but not all) of the current restrictions.

          1. This current wave is not assimilating, like the older waves of the past did.

            1. You keep on saying these things without actually providing any proof.

              1. bassjoe:

                If you followed current affairs, you would have all the proof you need! And you would agree with me.

        1. I lived in Kissimmee, Fl. There most of the Latino’s are Puerto Rician, they insist that you learn Spanish, because they hate speaking English. Nuf said!

          1. I live in Montreal for three years. It wasn’t dickish of people to want me to learn some French. It was dickish, and worse, to force private businesses to give English short shrift, and to use language issues as a wedge in a xenophobic crusade against 350 years of history.

            Which is more or less analogous to how the language issues is being used in the current U.S. debate.

            1. LynchPin1477:

              If you moved to France, would you expect them to learn English; instead of you learning French? Your argument and way of thinking on this issue are flawed my friend. A common language is what makes a society function. Do you want me to learn dozens of different languages to accommodate our new immigrants? It just would not make any sense.

              1. No, I’d expect to learn French. But I wouldn’t want anyone to force me to do it. And I wouldn’t want a business that was willing to serve me in English shut down.

                I think it would be awesome to speak dozens of different languages. Language isn’t my strong suit. My French being a prime example. But you shouldn’t have to, and an immigrant not willing to learn English won’t get your business.

                And the world will go on.

                1. If you moved to France and did not make a effort to learn French, it would be difficult for you to function. And that is the point I’m trying to make. I guess I would expect people to learn English if they plan on staying here. It just would be to their advantage.

                  1. We agree on that 100%. But you are saying that they “must learn English”. I think they should learn English. But must? That’s their choice.

                    I also have zero problem with picking up a bit more Spanish. Would be helpful when traveling. But I don’t have to do it any more than someone else has to learn English.

                    1. Well, I sure hate this Obamacare mandate! I feel ripped off. I’m paying 275 a month with a 4,500 deductible. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are failures on healthcare. I suppose you voted for Obama twice?

                    2. como?

            2. It is legit to learn French in Montreal. Absolutely.

              I draw the line at language laws to coerce people into it.

              1. Rufus, do I remember correctly that you own a restaurant or something up there? I’ll be back in October and I’m always looking out for new places to try.

                1. Daycare.

                  Feel free to hit me up.

              2. Unfortunately, this latest wave is not assimilating very well. That is why we need the mandate. You would not want to live in a place where no one spoke your language.

          2. You keep saying “Nuf said” then keep going. I’m going to stop reading after Nuf said, because by your own admission, anything that comes after that isn’t worth reading.

            1. Chevy the Mulched

              Your comments are not worth reading at all.

          3. They should insist. After all, Washington DC turned Puerto Rico in to a 100 mile wide housing project. What you’re seeing in Kissimmee is the flight that results when the government screws up a place.

            Settle down. Their kids and grandkids will speak English just fine.

            1. Butler T. Reynolds

              You have probably never even been to that part of Florida. And we should not have to wait twenty years for them to assimilate. You need to cool it!

        2. We need to limit immigration, even the legal form of it, to allow for assimilation of this current wave of immigrants homes.

          1. Immigration is, according to the letter of the law, limited right now, and massively so.

            It’s the excessive limitations on legal immigration that leads so many people to immigrate illegally. It’s not because they love living in the shadows. It’s because they have no other option if they want to try and work towards a better life here.

            Much like the drug war, scrapping most of the immigration laws would bring people out of the illegal path and onto a legal path where you could have checks for things like health and criminal records.

            People want to come here and they are going to find a way to do it unless we start exacting completely inhumane and immoral punishment on those that sneak across the border. Again, it’s just like the drug war. Hammering harder doesn’t destroy the problem, it just pushes it further underground where it does more damage and destroys more lives.

          2. As for the current immigrants, they’ll both assimilate and adopt American culture while also changing it. That’s not a bad thing at all. They’ll do it more quickly if they can legally integrate into society.

            All these issues were raised in the 19th and 20th centuries. We got St. Patrick’s Day and spaghetti and meatballs out of it. And Guinness Blonde not withstanding, it hasn’t been a disaster.

            1. If the sushi chefs in LA keep making spicy tuna the way I like, they can yell at me in whatever language they want.

            2. Yes, but those older waves of immigrants assimilated and learned English. The current wave of mostly Latino’s, refuse to speak English. That’s the big difference, homes.

              1. You are factually incorrect.

                Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply

                1. It is you who are wrong!

              2. Is there a reason that you keep insisting on English but keep ending all of your comments with pronouns like “dawg” and “homes?” I mean, granted, the actual words are English-ish but you sound like you’re trying to speak some form of slang that borders on Ebonics.

                You sure you want to impose only one language or just the one you’re most comfortable speaking? Because they might not end up being the same.

                1. I was just trying to speak your language, Pi Guy!

        3. This is only true when English is used by the dominate culture to conduct commerce, as the current situation dictates. But past performance does not dictate future returns. i.e. people will speak whatever language they need to to make money whether that’s English or something else. In other words, English hegemony last as long as English speakers have the dominate economy.

          Basically, it’s not a given that immigrants will conduct business in English. They’ll conduct English in business as long as English speaking people dominate commerce.

          Just stating the obvious.

          1. I heard some TED talk where the speaker was claiming that English’s position had become so dominant in a globalized economy that eventually almost everyone would speak English, though there would be lots of local dialects with heavy influence from traditional languages. And some people might keep traditional languages going for a while.

            I don’t believe it, but it was interesting food for thought.

            I think it was one of the first two

            1. There’s a sophisticated mathematic calculation that predicts the prevalence of a language. I’m really not intelligent enough to articulate the theory, but it goes something like this:

              Cash=language. You got it, I speak it.

            2. I doubt that English will ever truly replace regional languages, but I do think that most people will have a functional command of English in the near future.

              Japan and China, for example, mandate English classes (starting in Primary school I believe), and most of their University entrance exams have an English component.

              That said, their English education is focused on passing milestone tests and therefore emphasizes reading/writing/grammar skills rather that listening/speaking/communication ability, so that many people who know English are nevertheless reluctant to use it for anything.

        4. And the only way I see the Laws getting reformed is if the ones that exist stop being ignored for expedience and feelings.

      4. We need to secure our borders and mandate that Latino’s learn English.

        Mon tabarnac je vais te decalisser les yeule calice!

        (my French is garbage, Rufus can correct me)

        1. We need to secure our borders, homes. And yes they need to learn English, dawg.

          1. It’s not ‘my’ border lad. I live in bilingual country. There’s issues with it, but shockingly we haven’t collapsed.

            1. Also my grandparents spoke Dutch-English pidgin (with a heavy emphasis on the Dutch) until the day they died. Amazingly, their children and grandchildren assimilated.

            2. If we continue as it is, it will collapse. Once again I win the argument here!

              1. Ah, declaring that you’ve won an argument despite zero actual evidence to support your claims.

                Are you a Poe, an anti-immigrant version of Cytotoxic, a psychic or an idiot?

                1. I’m worried John finally had a nervous breakdown.

                  1. I’m worried John finally had a nervous breakdown.

                    I refuse to believe that even John at his worse would use ‘dawgs’ seriously.

                2. Listen, you fool, it is you who are the idiot!

                  1. Hey, that’s not fair, I gave you four choices!

                    1. John Titor, since you can’t win an argument, you resort to childish tactics! You make no sense.

                3. Listen, John Titor, it is you who are the dam fool!

                  1. You know, for someone who is very pro-English language, you speak it poorly, what with your ‘dawgs’ and ‘homes’.

                    1. I figured you would understand slang better!

                    2. By using dawg and homes, I’m speaking your language!

                    3. By using dawg and homes, I’m speaking your language!

                      These American upstarts seem to think their insight into the English language is better than that of our glorious British Commonwealth. I am deeply offended. Have at you, colonial rebel scum!

                    4. John Titor

                      You are the scum!

                    5. Great minds, sick minds… Whatever.

                      Nice timing, though.

            3. That’s why you don’t care. You don’t even live here!

              1. This above comment was directed at that idiot, John Titor!

          2. What does “dawg” mean? I’m only a 9th generation American so my English maybe shitty.

            1. You know what it means!

            2. Hell, I’m not going to even get into the fact that you Americans have changed the English language in perverse ways.

              I mean, no u’s in colour or favourite? You people make me sick. Speak the Queen’s English, godammit.

              1. THESE U’s DIP TO NO EARTHLY KING!

                1. You bastards make me have to fix the spellcheck on every Word processing software I get. The least you could do was embrace the proper Commonwealth English! And the metric system, you weirdos!

                  1. Get the fuck off my post, John Titor!

                  2. Chill out Frenchy! Go eat some crepes or something.

              2. You can leave any time you want, John Titor.

                1. Or you could learn to speak proper English.

                  1. John Titor

                    You are starting to piss me off!

      5. jrom,

        Agreed. Also, Christi’s idea doesn’t require ankle bracelets or bar codes-a simple biometric picture, e-palmprint, and verbalized answer in English. This is all downloaded to a chip on a picture ID. The data is also on law enforcement cloud storage. Scanners countrywide can read the palm, face, and voice if he/she looses the card. This is years-old off the shelf tech, not “yeah, let’s do that someday” future tech.

        And bingo-bango baby, you nailed it with English. Non English speaking visa over-stayer’s and otherwise illegal’s can be processed for deportation-we may not have an English language law, but we have a surplus of wanna-be-here foreigners who can speak English, so at least we can save some money on duplicate signs, translators, and other tower-of-babble expensive issues.

        And this article has a misleading Reagan ref-his deceptive VP turned Pres was pro-illegal, whereas Reagan’s “open border” reference was in respect to a legal worker-pass, like the program that was killed by Cali years ago.

        1. …Are all of you jokers having some fun? Or are you and jrom actually serious?

          1. MJGreen- Docile Citizen

            I just want to hold our country together, and not see it become a third world Latin American shithole!

    2. Speaking of retitling things, this article should be called ‘Hot August Fright: The Month Matt Welch Lost his Mind Over Immigration’.

  2. Matt Welch has to like the French Illegals because of his wife.

    1. There’s an idea, no restrictions on hot chicks entering the U.S. . But no fat chicks, uggo said, or dudes. This country is already too much of a sausagefest. Gotta watch the ratio.

      1. I agree, Suicidy, way too many fat chicks as it is. And then women have the nerve to look down on and treat short men like shit.

  3. Hey, mad props for including that brainless Dalmia quote about how its good for America if nobody raises their kids here.

    Oh, you didn’t mean that to be one of the “lost their minds” quotes? You sure about that?

    1. WHYCOME FAGGOTS NOT WANT MERICA TO RAISE THEIR KIDZ

      1. I don’t know, Cytofascist. Why don’t Canadians want Americans to raise their kids?

      2. I don’t know, Cytofascist. Why don’t Canadians want Americans to raise their kids?

      3. WHYCOME CANADIANS DON’T STFU ABOUT AMERICAN IMMIGRATION POLICY AND MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS?

        1. Considering that much of Canada’s foreign policy is a fait accompli due to being next to America we could say the same to you.

          1. Because Americans voice aggressive opinions about Canadian immigration policy?

            Most Americans don’t know Canada has an immigration policy. Many Americans confuse Canada with Narnia. Are you half-goat half-man?

            1. If I jump inside my wardrobe will I fall out into Vancouver?

            2. Look, I’m just saying, a lot of Canada’s foreign policy, and even some domestic policy, ended up being ‘do what the Americans want’ for a reason. Not that I’d ever want this, but if we elected communists in the Cold War the tanks would be rolling into Windsor the next day.

              And again, you people are always obsessed with Sarnia. It’s a fine city I guess, but why do all these Americans think its imaginary?

              1. I’m really just responding to cytotoxic. Who is rich in the know-it-all-asshole gene. Of course anyone can voice an opinion about American policy. It is sometimes best to consider culture differences, though.

                So, Cytotoxic=The White Witch? amirite?

                1. I wouldn’t give him that much credit. The White Witch was moderately competent, she only lost because she was facing Jesus.

              2. This is the truth.

                Canada has managed some semblance of independence despite living next to such a gigantic country like the USA which is impressive on its own. But much of the ‘decisions’ to key issues (ie common military policies) have been made long ago.

              3. John Titor

                You love to bash American’s; yet, you have no knowledge of history. American’s saved you cousin jacks in two world wars. Without America and Russia you limes would have fallen to the Nazi’s like the French did!

            3. It’s hard to tell with all those flapping heads and beady eyes.

          2. Hey. Didn’t I say the very same thing last night?

            1. Yeah, it was a good comment so I stole it. What you gotta do aboot it?

              1. In all seriousness, any Canadian not consumed by the nationalist disease knows that this is the reality. You worded it well last night.

                1. It took me all of one semester in university to figure that out.

                  And now look at me.

      1. Obviously, the solution is more government funded education on houseplant horticulture. Possibly a mandatory class sometime during k-12.

  4. “Donald Trump, for instance, has described building a 2,000-mile wall as “very easy.” ”
    From his point of view, it probably is. You tell minion A to go get contractors to do the work, and you tell minion B to go arrange financing. Problem solved.

    1. As easy as building a website.

      1. Not, if your the feds trying to build the Obamacare website. They still can’t get it to work.

          1. Obama, is a racist idiot!!

            1. Can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or if you really don’t get it.

              I want to believe it’s sarcasm.

              1. It is you, that does not seem to get it.

                1. I’m starting to get it, and it feels pretty trolly.

                  1. Turing test?

        1. Even after spending $600 million on a $6 million dollar website. And no one got fired. Not even the contractor who coincidentally happened to have one of its principals as a college friend of Michelle Obama.

          1. Suicidy

            That’s our idiot government for you! They spent 600 million just to jack up our healthcare premiums! While the government crooks get free healthcare for life and a fat pension! And to top it off, the federal employees don’t even pay their income taxes. And the IRS gives their fellow crooks a free pass.

    2. Donald Trump makes deals for a living, so he will make some deals to get that wall built, and get the Mexicans to pay for it. It is logic. That is what happens when you are a businessman.

      1. #SCIENCE

  5. Wait for me to praise Trump-free envoironment in PM Links, then spring this shit? I will have my revenge, Reason!

  6. Oh noes! The Republicans aren’t for open borders, just like almost all developed countries.

    That’s just CRAAAAAAAAZY.

    1. Oh noes! Democrats aren’t for free-market healtchare, just like almost all developed countries.

      That’s just SOCIALIST.

      1. Those Democrooks raised my health insurance three fold. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are idiots!

          1. The yolkaltarians seem to be getting dumber with each comment.

          1. Your positions on this issue make no sense. Did you vote for our racist and incompetent president, Obama?

        1. Progressives should be exiled from our lands. This country needs a massive new Red Scare.

          1. I guess progressive just means that the government will micro manage us on everything that we do. Yet, they just make up the rules as they go along. And government actors seem to be immune from all criminal and civil liability.

      1. Yet, they are now in the process of closing those borders, and have no open borders with second or third-world nations (except, perhaps, Greece).

        1. Look for that ‘process’ to stretch on to forever. In any event, those open borders have been nothing but good for them.

          1. Look for that ‘process’ to stretch on to forever

            Or not. Austria just “closed” its border, requiring incoming traffic to be searched for illegals, setting off an 18 mile traffic jam.

            http://www.usnews.com/news/bus…..ile-backup

          2. In any event, those open borders have been nothing but good for them.

            Talk about begging the question.

      2. Just like 50 states in the US have open borders with their neighboring states.

        1. Good point, I guess? Are you saying American states should close of their borders with one another?

          1. No. He’s saying they are part of the same nation/state and have a shared political system and the same legal framework. (for what it’s worth).

            Just as the Europeans are attempting to build (sorta in our image).

      3. That’s why they are hellholes, dawg!

  7. United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    All of a sudden Reason is a great believer in the judgment of Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court has spoken! Let it be written! Let it be done!

    In this case they were dealing with *legal* resident aliens, not illegal immigrants. I suggest that *legal* status of *residency* makes for the proper extension of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    This would not include children born to illegal immigrants or tourists.

    It’s simply quite bizarre that we attempt to nationalize children of tourists, and nonsensical that we grant citizenship to a child based on their parents violating our immigration laws.

    1. One of the difficulties of the birthright citizenship issue is parsing out that jurisdiction clause.

      Was it meant to exclude only children of diplomats? Indians on reservations? Was it meant to imply the “exclusive” jurisdiction?

      A serious and non-political analysis of this would be greatly appreciated, if anyone has a link.

      1. No one ever intended for the current bullshit to be allowed under the law. Who in their right mind would. It needs to end.

    2. I wonder, back in the days when we had a draft:

      Did we require people who were born here, but had never lived here, to register for the draft and serve in the army if their number was pulled?

      1. Why not? We require everyone born here but not living here to pay US income tax regardless of where they earn it, so it would make sense (to a Statist) to require them to be subject to the draft.

      2. It would seem to follow, but I don’t know if that was the case.

        The draft was based on SSN, right? I would think if they had a SSN they could get drafted, in theory. But it also seems like it would be difficult to enforce. That’s why draft dodgers went to Canada.

        1. The draft was based on SSN, right?

          Mebbe. If so, people who grew up overseas won’t have one, and wouldn’t be drafted.

          1. Nevermind, it was based on birthday and name, apparently. Or at least one iteration of the draft lottery.

            Regardless, living over seas in a country that wouldn’t expedite seems like a default get out of draft free card.

            1. In practice, sure.

              I’m wondering if we even pretended that they really were citizens, and thus subject to the draft.

    3. It’s simply quite bizarre that we attempt to nationalize children of tourists, and nonsensical that we grant citizenship to a child based on their parents violating our immigration laws

      In order to violate a country’s laws, you must first be subject to that country’s jurisdiction. That’s what the word means — that they have legal authority over you. Per the plain language of the US Constitution, people born here while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens from birth.

      Either the child is not a citizen, or the parents aren’t subject to US law. It is logically impossible for an American-born child of “illegal immigrants” to not be a citizen of the United States.

      1. people born here while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens from birth.

        There was a couple rounds of legislation, I believe, on the citizenship of American Indians.

        They were unquestionably born in the US. Reservations are still US territory, and US law applies there, in a limited fashion, but applies nonetheless.

        If it were as simple as “everyone born in the US is automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and thus a US citizen”, why was legislation necessary for the Amerinds born here?

        And again, if being born on US soil makes you automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, what point is served by the additional language? Diplomats? We put language in our Constitution just for that? Invading armies? I’m not even sure that foreign soldiers (and, more to the point, camp followers) on US soil aren’t “subject to US jurisdiction”, to tell you the truth.

        1. If it were as simple as “everyone born in the US is automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and thus a US citizen”, why was legislation necessary for the Amerinds born here?

          I don’t know the history, but given the way the Indians were treated during and after western expansion, it wouldn’t surprise me if their privileges under law were ignored, despite whatever language was in the Constitution.

          Or that language could have been intended to omit Indians living in ostensibly U.S. territory that hadn’t yet been brought under real government control.

          Just some thoughts. If you have any links to some of this history I’d be interested.

        2. Indians weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the states. Reservations are federally controlled.

          what point is served by the additional language

          Denial of birthright citizenship to people who aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the states, e.g. Indians. Not a difficult concept, really.

      2. Don’t try to talk logic.

  8. 1. Scott Walker isn’t proposing a wall on the Canadian border – please stop repeating that bullshit.

    2. Most of the Republican base has been for controlling the border and cracking down on illegal immigration for a long time. Trump is just the first guy to actually agree with them and say it in plain English – not political double-talk.

    The Jindal, Paul, Perry, Kasich, and Trump quotes didn’t sound the least bit insane to me. I would think Libertarians of all people would refrain from throwing the insults.

    1. “The Jindal, Paul, Perry, Kasich, and Trump quotes didn’t sound the least bit insane to me.”

      Then I am really not interested in what you have to say because you clearly lack the sanity required to say anything worth hearing.

      1. And you are one of those crazy libertarians I hear about so I need not listen to your nonsense.

        1. No, it’s worse – he’s Canadian. With the beady eyes and flapping mouth and everything. He’s still mad they all only got Bennigans coupons when Canada went onstrike.

          1. No, it’s worse – he’s Canadian.

            I swear to the Allfather, I’m going to find those ivory bagpipes Canadian customs stole from you, come over to your house, and grind them up in a woodchipper while you watch.

          2. I’m also guessing they’re angry because Newfoundland never got their sodomy back.

    2. Re: Drake,

      2. Most of the Republican base has been for controlling the border and cracking down on illegal immigration for a long time. Trump is just the first guy to actually agree with them and say it in plain English – not political double-talk.

      What Trump said in plain English was insane, Drake. First he justified his stance by insinuating most Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. Then he said he’s going to deport something like 11 million individuals, along with their families, their dogs and cats, but if they’re good people, he’s going to bring them back expeditiously.

      Does that sound like someone who is operating with all eight cylinders to you, Drake?

      1. I am talking about the specific “most insane” quote up in the article. I do not agree with all he is saying about immigration and am not defending him.

      2. OldMexican:

        Trump, does not want to deport anyone. That’s just the propaganda of the Democrooks. What Trump meant is that some illegals are rapists and drug dealers. If you think Democrats care about illegals, I have a bridge to sell you. They just want your vote come election time. That’s how Obama won his elections. It is always race and class warfare with the Democrats. And many Latino’s do themselves a disservice by not learning English. It is as if they expect American’s to learn Spanish, so they don’t have to learn English. How ignorant is that OldMexican?

        1. Exactly. I’ve said many times that democrats don’t care about any issues at all. The only thing that matters is increasing their power and increasing the level of Marxism in our country. That’s pretty much it. They would re-enslave blacks, execute homosexuals and shoot Mexicans on sight if they thought they could have Soviet Maoist land tomorrow.

          1. Suicidy

            Another excellent point!

          1. I’m telling you, it’s John. He finally lost it.

  9. The Month Republicans Lost Their Minds Over Immigration

    It’s not like it happened suddenly. During that time I wasn’t kicked out of the Townhall dot com comments section, I could read about 100 opinions that could not be differentiated from the current policies espoused by the Trumpistas.

    From deporting U.S. citizens to electronically tagging tourists, the top 14 Republican presidential candidates each said something insane about immigration this month

    Not only insane but demonstrably untrue. The worst of all the myths perpetuated by right-wing socialists like the Trumpistas is that people who overstay their visas should be expelled, but it is not the visa that allows you to stay in the U.S. beyond mile 26, it is your I-94 permit. The visa allows you to come in to the US but it is DHS that grants you the time of stay, which can be from a month for a tourist (or 6 months if you don’t seem to come and go many times), to 2 years for a work visa.

    The best of all myths is the one that families can stay because of anchor babies. I want to know how is one supposed to pull that one off, because I have a son who is an American citizen and already my immigration lawyer told me that the anchor baby thing is just pure and unadulterated bullshit (translation: NO, we can’t stay only because I have a son who is an American citizen.)

    1. “NO, we can’t stay only because I have a son who is an American citizen.”

      Are there family reunification provisions that let him get you in when he turns 21?

      1. Re: Homple,

        Are there family reunification provisions that let him get you in when he turns 21?

        Yes. He’s 6-years-old NOW. We’re still 15 years away from that.

        Talk to the Trumpistas and you will notice they really believe mothers of newborn American citizens who came to the US illegally can stay here the moment the child comes out the birth canal. Why do you think they call them “anchor babies” and not “anchor men” or “anchor women”?

        1. I have a friend who worked immigration law for many years, and what you say is exactly right. She saw many instances where the parents would go to proceedings and bring their American Citizen baby. At that point, the judge would tell them that the child was free to stay if he/she had legal relatives to stay with. And if they didn’t have legal relatives, the entire family was deported.

          The “anchor baby” phenomenon is more complex- basically, once the kid gets citizenship, the family can now access all sorts of services in their name. As long as the parents stay out of the system, the kids can get them access to anything they need. In a world where we persistently decline to deport illegals, “anchor babies” are the way illegals get documents for their household.

          Not saying it is bad, just saying that’s the way it is.

      2. All illegal immigrants are allowed to stay. Even middle eastern terrorists. In fact, Obama wants to let in terrorists from the middle east because they usually vote Democrat!! Who cares if Americans die from terrorist attacks, as long as the Democrats keep control of the White House for generations to come!! That’s how our political leaders think!!

        1. Re: jrom,

          All illegal immigrants are allowed to stay

          Why do you think that that is relevant?

          1. OldMexican

            They have allows been allowed to stay. No one in government has ever called for illegals to be deported.

    2. OldMexican:

      The democrooks don’t care about Hispanics!! They just want your vote.

      1. Re: jrom,

        Why do you think I would care about what the Demo-rats door think, jrom?

        1. I guess you don’t care about the demorats!

    3. A few things

      First i do think if you are a foreign born nursing mother with a US born child the US will keep you around longer before deporting then say you who is a father.

      Second an anchor baby does not necessarily have to do with immigration of the parent but with government financial support. A US born citizen is entitled to…well…entitlements. Mexican born mom can get welfare, subsidized rent, food stamps healthcare school education partially for herself and entirely for her US born child. Anyway that is what I think anchor baby refers to when it is used by closed boarders people. More about the raising of the baby being paid for by the government then about getting the parents naturalized.

      Note: Both of my grandmas were anchor babies (though entitlements back then were pretty much non-existent) so I have no problem with anyone else being or having anchor babies. nor do i have a problem with a more open boarders policy then we currently have.

  10. Wow – this subject just makes everyone lose their shit.

    [disengage transmission – set parking brake]

    And SO nice of Cytofascist to come in and tell the US to operate utterly unlike his own country!! Why don’t you immigrate down here, become a citizen, and THEN tell us all how to do it, Cytofascist?

    Your ideas are so enthralling and well developed. Until you get your US citizenship in order, I’d be interested in subscribing to any newsletters you may publish.

    1. Why would a libertarian want to immigrate from Canada to the United States? The USA fell below Canada in overall freedom years ago, and our two major parties are currently toying with socialism and fascism.

  11. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    What the drafters of the Amendment meant with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means “under the laws of the land” (from the Latin iuris, law or rule; and dictio, saying or say-so). When a person is born here or naturalized, he or she is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and because of this that person is ipso facto a United States Citizen.

    The argument posited by the anti-immigrant ideologues is that illegal immigrants are inside the US illegally and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. First of all, this is patently false since laws are applied by US courts and officials to all individuals within the borders except foreign diplomats and their families, according to treaty. If I were an illegal immigrants I would still be subject to the jurisdiction of US laws if I commit a crime and not some other laws. Second, the legal status of the parents is irrelevant. Laws do not ascribe equal culpability to the sons or daughters of people who commit crimes. This is something that the Trumpistas and anti-immigration zealots conveniently forget.

    1. When a person is born here or naturalized, he or she is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and because of this that person is ipso facto a United States Citizen.

      That interpretation means that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has no purpose, will change no outcomes. That’s generally disfavored in interpreting legal language like this.

      laws are applied by US courts and officials to all individuals within the borders except foreign diplomats and their families, according to treaty.

      My understanding is that foreign diplomats have a form of immunity if they violate our laws. Ordinarily, you don’t need immunity from laws you aren’t subject to at all, which would mean that they ARE subject to US jurisdiction, and by this reading, their children born in the US would be US citizens (even though “everyone agrees” this isn’t so). Again, I am no expert on this.

      1. I’m not an expert either but I think the foreign diplomat argument (along with the invading army and Indian tribe that may have lived in a U.S. territory but were not under the U.S. government) follows from that language.

    2. Wrong. Jurisdiction is used in a very different context in that writing. Foreign citizens are subjects/citizens of another country, and subject the the jurisdiction of THAT country.

  12. I guess crazy is an improvement from calling them racists

    Of course calling me crazy in the comments here seems to be the new sport.

    Wait a min,

    Is “crazy” code for racist like International banker is code for Jew?

    1. That’s a good thing! I’ve decided that I won’t vote for any politician that hasn’t been called a raaaaacist by the Reason editorial staff.

      Fortunately, that means most actual libertarian leaning politicians are still eligible to get my vote.

      Except, of course, Gary Johnson.

    2. Nothing says ‘not crazy’ like random paranoia about Jesse Walker’s imagined motivations for posting a joke he thought was funny.

      1. “Oh noz a rapper called my slimy profession slimy. I know I will compare him in a tweet to a guy my slimeball rag of a blog just called a rascist”

        Jokey laugh out loud comedy ensues.

        haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha .. haha ..

  13. “The Canada-U.S. border is 5,500 miles long. A very small percentage of illegal immigrants come from Canada”

    Does this include our comedians and hockey players?

  14. When I first heard what Walker said about the wall and Canada I thought about Allen Iverson and replaced the word ‘practice’ with ‘Canada.’

    As in, ‘Canada? We’re talkin’ ’bout Canada?’

    1. “We sittin here talkin bout Canada, man!”

      1. I also think about Les Nessman when he wanted walls built around his office space in the bullpen. ‘Walls, Andy! WALLS!’

        Loved that show.

  15. I just finished reading an article on this site about how liberals don’t like the First Amendment except when it is in their interest. The rest of the time they’d prefer speech restrictions. Now I read this article that says Republicans have lost their mind on immigration policy. Well I’m sorry I must have missed the part where the selective application of law is good for the country. Illegals need to be rounded up and deported. Why? Because it’s the effin law. Whenever we fail to enforce the law that causes people to question the validity of our governments authority. With good reason. The entire nation has watched Obama flaunt the rule of law for seven years. So what is in any way surprising when we see others do so as well? They’re simply following the example that has been set. The DNC hired an illegal alien in blatant violation of federal election rules. These people show and go on welfare and I for one am tired of paying for them. They’re not supposed to be able to get benefits but they do. Why does anyone have a problem with punishing law breakers? And why does this page support free speech for all in one article while promoting the selective application of law in another?

    1. Because free speech for all advances liberty and our current immigration laws do not.

      Having said that, I don’t think anyone here, and certainly not the writers, is in favor of the status quo. They want to change the laws to allow people who haven’t hurt anyone to live here legally, and to allow more peaceful people to come here to seek a better life and contribute to others while doing so.

  16. I think August is the month Reason lost its mind over Donald Trump.

  17. The DemoGOP exports prohibition, looter tax laws and economic collapse. People would likely enjoy being where they are if they were not arrested, jailed, tortured and killed. But they are, per suggestions whispered into the ears of their own looter politicians by GPML Mentors and Prohibitionist Advisors sent by These United States. They are fleeing for the same reason people fled national socialist and soviet socialist regimes whenever they spied an opportunity. Today is it the US that is making jobs illegal and helping ban take-home pay overseas. JFK hoped they would support their own freedom, and they are… only thanks to the bigots in charge of Congress, they can no longer have freedom at home.

  18. Hot August Fright: The Month Republicans (lost the election) Lost Their Minds Over Immigration

    there are not enough white xenophobes to have the GOP in the white house. For a party that wanted to have a better relationship with Hispanics, it looks like they kinda went the opposite direction, and with Asians, to boot.

    The Winner needs at least 47% of the hispanic vote, or 85 percent of whites to vote for them, which is not happening.
    So yes, Hillary can kill a puppy on live TV, but if it means someones American Citizen Son or Daughter doesnt get deported, well, sorry, pup.

    1. Most Hispanics that are past second or third generation don’t like illegals. That’s my experience around here, at least.

  19. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  20. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble

    Please tell me that’s not a typo & you didn’t make that name up!

    1. And his assistant Hank Bits.

  21. There’s no sugar coating it: the Matt Welch-led gay-married-millennial-immigrant libertarian revolution will be a long time coming.

    1. Libertarians are starting to remind me of an over-the-hill indie rock band that had a couple minor hits in the 90’s, and is still on the road telling themselves the Big Time is right around the corner.

      The Libertarian Moment? is in the rear-view mirror.

      1. Whose fault is *that,* Your Majesty?

        1. Oh, and by the way, *I’m* Napoleon Bonaparte, so I’ll have to ask you for my uniform and hat.

          1. Hey – it’s My Truth!

      2. I’m afraid that the rigidity of, at least Reason’s flavor of libertarianism has started to make their appeal more, umm, selective.

  22. Illegal immigration is a problem, but I disagree with the methods that the Republican candidates are presenting, as viable solutions.

    Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but I personally would like the hard-working honest immigrants to have a true pathway to citizenship into our country. I was talking to my boss about this this morning, he’s a member of the red team more or less, but he said something about the ability for immigrants to get a working visa, and after a finite number of years they’d be eligible for citizenship. The employer would be responsible for them to get situated, and they could apply for private health care if they so desired, along with driving licenses, etc.

    While it wasn’t the greatest idea, but I’ve certainly heard worse.

    I wonder if Trump really believes that he’ll win the Hispanic vote.

  23. The author seems to have a problem understanding the idea of national sovereignty. Visitors are guests. They don’t have the same rights as citizens. Fines for hiring illegal immigrants isn’t crazy. Law is part of the federal government’s responsibilities and so is the border. Ending sanctuary cities is definitely constitutional and putting those two together with free bus tickets back makes a wall unnecessary.

  24. Just when I start to entertain the idea that there might be a minuscule chance of my voting Republican, the GOP has me rolling my eyes all the way back to another “wasted” Libertarian vote.

    Gary Johnson it is.

    1. Google “the case for voting libertarian”
      It turns out that a vote for the LP has ten times the law-changing power of any other alternative. Where do you imagine these trends come from?

  25. Trump signed the GOP pledge not to run as an independent. Once his fake candidacy has diverted enough attention from the LP he, like young Paul, will have served their purpose.
    NOW can we talk about libertarian candidates?

  26. There are still no Ted Cruz pi?atas anywhere. Donald Trump pi?atas are a drug on the market. Could it be some sort of racial discrimination or is there a policy difference between the two?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.