Donald Trump

Donald Trump Has Found Some New Legal Immigrants to Deport: Syrian Refugees

|

Yesterday in New Hampshire, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump announced that if he wins the presidency, Syrian refugees are "going back." "They're going back," he added. "I'm telling you, they're going back." Here's a video clip:

Trump's views on accepting Syrian refugees has evolved the past month. On Sept. 8, he told Bill O'Reilly that "I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, with what's happening, you have to." The next day, when asked about it by CNN, he sounded a more cautious note, saying "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart." On Sept. 15, he told Morning Joe that "the answer is possibly yes," and then on Sept. 22, Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski declared that a Trump White House would "take in zero" refugees.

Trump's broader comments conflate the Syrians traveling by boat to Europe with the ones filing applications to enter the United States as refugees, even though those two populations are significantly different:

And now I hear we want to take in 200,000 Syrians. And they could be—listen—they could be ISIS, I don't know! Did you ever see a migration like that? They're all men! And they're all strong-looking guys! Did you see it? They're walking—and there's so many men, there aren't that many women. And I'm saying to myself, "Why aren't they fighting to save Syria? Why are they migrating all over Europe?" I'm serious!

The Syrians that the United States has been accepting as refugees—after an average screening time of 18 to 24 months—are not "all men" or "all strong-looking guys," regardless of whatever images are coming out of Europe (which is a different continent, one that is more accessible from North Africa and the Middle East by boat). From the beginnings of the Syrian civil war to 2015 and through last month, the demographic population of refugees accepted by the U.S. has consistently been about 53 percent male, and about 30 percent between the ages of 20 and 40. Given America's screening process and heightened security concerns, there is no reason to expect those demographics to change even with a sharp increase in refugees; indeed, the demographics have not changed over the past five years, even as the numbers have recently begun to spike.

As for why the strong-looking guys among the refugee population aren't "fighting to save Syria," that may be due to the fact that Syria is a murderous dictatorship riven by a brutally sectarian civil war that has killed upwards of 300,000 and displaced 4 million people, with very little long-term prospects aside from abject misery, poverty, and death. A fight whose main participants include Bashar al-Assad, ISIL, Hezbollah, the Islamic Front and suchlike is not one whose virtuous side is easy to pick out. Young strong men are always the first conscripts of wars they might not be inclined to fight, as Donald Trump surely remembers from his multiple Vietnam deferments.

To sum up, President Trump's FDR-topping expulsion docket includes the following:

* 11 million illegal immigrants.

* 4 million American-citizen children of illegal immigrants.

* However many legal Syrian refugees we have by then; maybe in the low tens of thousands (currently the number stands at a little over 1,800, 42 percent of whom are under age 14).

NEXT: Free-market (think tank) merger

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. With a wife that looks like that, it’s not much wonder he’s prone to hysteria over young men.

    1. Danger! I just looked her up. She’s smokin’.

      No hetero.

        1. Another participant in the “long con?”

          I believe it.

    2. Yeah… but he’s right. Again.

  2. Given America’s screening process and heightened security concerns, there is no reason to expect those demographics to change even with a sharp increase in refugees; indeed, the demographics have not changed over the past five years, even as the numbers have recently begun to spike.

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

    1. You can trust the Obama administration on this, really. Anyway, what difference at this point does it make?

    2. There are no guarantees in life. That doesn’t mean statistics and past practices are not strongly relevant. When a trend line remains consistent time and time again, there needs to be a better argument for why it will look different in the future other than “OMG did you watch television???”

      1. So, what you’re saying, Matt, is Donald Trump is a turd?

        Interesting…….

        1. Shit Sandwich. As opposed to the Giant Douche.

          1. He has aspects of both. I guess that makes him a used enema?

      2. When a trend line remains consistent time and time again, there needs to be a better argument for why it will look different in the future other than “OMG did you watch television???”

        True enough. There are two major fallacies in investing:

        “This time its different,” and

        “Past performance guarantees/strongly predicts future results.”

        You will note that these are inconsistent. Each is true in certain situations and time frames. the trick is figuring out which is which.

        The difference, I think, is whether there is a material change in the underlying dynamics that create the trend. Looks to me like there has been such a change, as the current migrant influx into Europe from “Syria” [note: many of the “Syrian” migrants are from no such place] seems to be different both in size and composition. Will that affect the Syrian migrants to the US?

        Dunno. But it might be interesting to at least ask the question, Matt.

      3. That doesn’t mean statistics and past practices are not strongly relevant.

        -2 towers in New York…

  3. As for why the strong-looking guys among the refugee population aren’t “fighting to save Syria,”..blah, blah, blah

    I still don’t get this argument.

    1. That’s what Syria needs, you know. Lots more soldiers, more guns, more armies. But it has to be the right sort. Good people, with American values values Americans used to hold dear before they left all that silly nonsense in the past. The reason there’s still all this fighting is because the good people haven’t entered the war yet. Once they do, they will win – I mean, hel-LO, the good people – and then Syria can get on with it’s life. So get on it.

      I’d do it, but I’m too old/valuable/female/insert excuse here. And it’s not my country so I don’t give a shit. But if it were… well, I’d still be old/valuable/female/insert excuse here. BUT. If it were my country and I were not old/valuable/female/insert excuse here, then rest assured that I would most certainly fight a….

      What were we talking about again?

        1. I’m all in favor of importing more like her.

      1. What they need is four or five people that can agree on the nunnation in any two passages from the Koran.

        1. WHYCOME THEY CAIN’T FIGHT OVER NORMAL SHIT, LIKE FOOTBAWL AND BLOWJOBS?

              1. Lawks a mercy!

    2. I still don’t get this argument.

      I think what its getting at, is that a “refugee” flood that consists mostly of men, and seems to include a lot of young men, offends the Western notion of “women and children first”.

      You have a handful of possible explanations:

      (1) Most of the women and children from “Syria” [again, many of the migrants are not Syrian at all] have already been killed, so its only men left to flee. This seems unlikely.

      (2) These migrants have abandoned the women and children to the tender mercies of whoever they are fleeing. This, if true, is so repellent to me that I would have no problem barring any migrant from “Syria” who is not a woman, child, or part of a family group including women and children.

      (3) Many of these migrants aren’t fleeing anything, but are purely “economic” migrants.

      1. I think what its getting at, is that a “refugee” flood that consists mostly of men, and seems to include a lot of young men, offends the Western notion of “women and children first”.

        No, I mean I don’t get why its morally offensive to wonder why a group of people aren’t willing to defend their kith and kin.

        1. Because these cosmotarian quislings wouldn’t fight either.

          1. cosmotarian quislings

            Say that five times fast.

            1. Quismotarians may become a new thing.

              1. DIBS

              2. Quisnotarians? Sandwich and cocktail as a lunch bundle? You may have something here!

      2. There is another possibility which is that Syria is so fractured that the people fleeing don’t see a side that they are interested in defending.

        If a civil war breaks out in this country between socons and progressives, and they both start running around gassing, bombing, raping, beheading and torturing, I’m going elsewhere, because I’m not spilling my blood on either one of their behalfs.

          1. Says the Obama-fellating progtard.

          2. ^^^This can’t happen soon enough to the likes of you.

        1. And you’re leaving your wife in this mess?

  4. Someone should tell Donald Trump that in America we have something called ‘protections against ex-post facto laws’ and that therefore you actually can’t deport someone who is legally in the country since they would be grandfathered in to any law change. That’s why there are currently legally available chain guns I can buy – because before they were outlawed, some entered the civilian market and are therefore legally available.

    The courts therefore wouldn’t let you deport people who were legal citizens at the time of the law change or people who are legally in the country as refugees before the law change. You could change the law and refuse any more people, but you can’t boot American citizens out.

    1. However, based on the advances of the Imperial Presidency, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that a president Trump would just order it done anyway, and after much handwringing, nothing else would happen. It’s not like presidents are held to account for strictly following and enforcing the law these days.

      1. Yet another reason I’m voting for whoever is not Trump. I’ll vote for Sanders over Trump.

        The reason for this is because if Trump actually tries to do this, America will pretty literally become a fascist state. The courts won’t allow him to boot out American citizens, so either he fails to do that (in which case his fans riot and he will not win reelection) or he ignores court orders and forces the federal bureaucracy to round up American citizens at gunpoint in contravention of the constitution and the judiciary.

        Thankfully I don’t think there’s any chance he wins, but if he did we’d basically become Mussolini’s Italy.

        1. Thankfully I don’t think there’s any chance he wins, but if he did we’d basically become Mussolini’s Italy.

          He would really just be accelerating the process.

          1. At least the folks who killed off the Roman Republic (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Augustus et al) were marginally competent . It looks like the American Republic will die at the hands of fools.

            1. Given Sulla’s performance in the Parthian Campaign, I put him on the low-end of marginally competent. A lot like Trump – a ruthless business guy who fucked over a lot of people, then got into something way over his head – which cost him that head.

              1. ???

                Sulla died in a villa with his gay lover at an old age after ruling Rome as dictator and retiring.

                You’re probably thinking of Crassus. Who yes, was not very military competent (Spartacus’ defeat aside) and very business savvy. Crassus is actually a really good comparison to Trump.

                1. I am – I forgot Sulla was the prick who liked to “proscribe” people and take all their shit. Sort of an ancient asset forfeiture program he had going.

                  1. Marius did it too, as did Augustus before he became Princeps.

              2. Sulla, not Crassus! Old Crassus did most damage to the Republic by dying and removing a stabilizing factor between Caesar and Pompey.
                And reading Plutarch about his campaign, he comes across as competent but arrogant. His campaign collapses due to poor intelligence work – he ignores advice of locals who are friendly, then listens to a Parthian secret agent who leads him astray.
                Long story short, Trump wishes he was as capable as Crassus.

                1. He also ignored all his officers who actually knew how to fight.

        2. We didn’t become a fascist state after Jackson told the SC to fuck off. Honestly, as stupid as Trump is, I don’t see how he’s worse than any other candidate not named Rand.

          He would leave Obamacare in place, but how many of the current GOP candidates would lift a goddamned finger to get rid of it? Maybe 3.

          Maybe he’s a wannabe dictator,but how many presidential candidates aren’t?

          I don’t know what he’s saying now,and quite frankly I don’t give a damn, but in the past he’s supported legalized drugs and less foreign intervention than what we’ve had recently.

          I’m not gonna vote for him, but I just don’t see why I should piss myself at the possibility of yet another blowhard moron in office.

          1. Jackson did not tell the SC to fuck off by rounding up actual American citizens and throwing them out of the country at gunpoint.

            1. Ummmm….technically they weren’t American citizens?

              1. I guess he means that the 14th Amendment hadn’t been ratified at the time.

              2. JT,

                Fair point, but regardless the Trail of Tears isn’t anything to be emulated obviously (I know you’re not making that argument, I’m refuting Dark Lord’s notion that Jackson’s actions were no big deal).

                1. I didn’t say the Jackson’s actions were no big deal. I said it didn’t result in brown shirts goose stepping down Pennsylvania avenue.

                  1. I think tens of thousands of people being forcibly deported hundreds (or thousands) of miles from where they live to be confined on reservations, with many dying along the way, is bad enough, brownshirts or not.

            2. So Syrian ‘refugees’ are granted automatic citizenship when they set foot on North America?

              1. I think he’s referring to the kids of illegal immigrants who were born here.

                1. Still, if they’re minors, he probably does have the power to deport them, so long as it’s in the process of reuniting them with their families, who presumably were also deported. If they come back as adults, he can’t do shit about it, tho.

                  1. If they come back as adults, he can’t do shit about it, tho.

                    Maybe, but that’s assuming they come back. If Trump actually would launch an Operation Wetback II–Taco Truck Boogaloo like he’s threatening, there’s a good chance a lot of Hispanic immigrants would simply self-deport rather than deal with the hassle of INS coming after them. Since it isn’t actually against the law to deport the minor children of these immigrants, without family or friends in place to enable future chain migration, the native-born kids could conceivably just stay wherever their families remained.

                    I suspect the media blitz over the deportations would prevent all this from happening anyway. Journalists love a good sob story, and little Joaquin, “who gets straight As in school and doesn’t speak a lick of Spanish,” having to go live in some Mexican shithole with his deported parents is an easy one to find.

            3. Being granted “refugee” status doesn’t make you an American citizen, stupid.
              Any non-citizen can be deported and, I believe, naturalized ones can have their citizenship revoked.
              Not to mention that refugee status is supposed to be for people with an individualized, life-threatening reason for fleeing, not just because your country sucks.

        3. I sympathize with this view, but I really don’t think it would be that bad. If somehow Trump gets in that position, he will be just like every other president. He’ll disappoint his fans and, whatever his blunt talk, he’ll relent to the courts and the legislature for such issues.

          Or he really could be serious, and then yeah, shit will hit the fan.

    2. You could amend the Constitution to allow for it. People forget, the Constitution isn’t magic. If the votes were there, we could pass an amendment that says, “Everything up to this point is null and void. The Clinton Family is now the dynastic rulers of the North American continent by the Grace of God and their word is law. No other legislative process will ever be utilized. The end.” And as long as that amendment was passed the way it’s laid out for right now, it would be totally legit.

      But if it’s going to harm a democratic voting bloc (immigrants), good luck getting any liberals on board for passing the kind of amendments we need (marriage defined as between one man and one woman, all illegals out, immigration stopped until the current wave can be properly assimilated, all public accommodation laws abolished, minimum wage abolished, disparate impact laws abolished, all regulatory agencies abolished).

      1. They won’t amend the constitution to allow this. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for that and no Democrats would.

      2. No, no, no, yes, yes, yes, YES.

        Unfortunately, the no’s are deal-breakers. Replace all the immigration with repeal EMTALA, and shut down all transfer payments. And marriage doesn’t have any business being discussed in the Constitution.

        1. marriage doesn’t have any business being discussed in the Constitution

          It does if we’re to put a stop to the scourge of homosexual chain-migration!

          Seriously… WTF?

    3. Irish, are you tired of winning? Because you will be.

      Stop with your law and logic already.

    4. you actually can’t deport someone who is legally in the country since they would be grandfathered in to any law change.

      If they are here on sufferance as “refugees”, I’m not sure their continued status is guaranteed if we change our definition of refugee. I don’t know if there is a Constitutional requirement to grandfather in anyone who qualified under a repealed or changed law.

    5. We do?

      I bought an HK91 rifle in Massachusetts in 1989. From a licensed dealer with a permit all nice and legal. Then the state banned the gun and I am now longer allowed to own it. Strange that the ACLU didn’t jump in on my behalf.

      I still have it of course – fuck you Taxachusetts!

    6. Unfortunately, none of that is true.

      You can’t punish someone for breaking a law before it was passed. That’s it.

      1. You absolutely cannot throw an American citizen out of the country by changing citizenship laws after he’s already become a citizen.

        Which is what Trump wants to do – change citizenship laws and throw millions of legally born American citizens back into Mexico. Barring a change to the constitution allowing him to do this, that is completely illegal.

        1. You can throw out legal residents by making them illegal.

    7. Is this correct?

      You may not be able to deport someone who is in this country legally, but if theirstatus changes to being in this country illegally then you can deport that person.

      A trivial example would be someone on a tourist visa. The day before it expires, the person is in the county legally, the day after he is not.

      Now consider some of the people in the country from Honduras or Liberia who aren’t being deported because they have temporary protective status due to conditions in their home country. The US could (but never does) choose not to renew the status when it expires. Then the people who are currently in the country legally would be here illegally and could be deported.

      I don’t know enough about the asylum process, but isn’t it possible that the refugees could be in the US, applying for asylum, but before the asylum is granted Trump becomes President and decided to end all asylum requests. The refugees now have no legal right to be in the country and can be deported.

  5. Sounds legit to me. What part of “illegal” do they not get? Shut the fuck up and get your own country. If your country sucks, then too fucking bad, life ain’t fair. Shoot yourself and re-roll. Maybe you’ll be reincarnated as somebody who doesn’t have a piece of shit life, i.e. a white christian American.

    1. And before anyone says anything about crossing borders being a natural right, I agree…as long as there is no such thing as taxpayer funded gov’t services. But since there is, every single one of these pricks is directly taking money from me. It’s bad enough I can’t force poor people to stop breeding (which we should, as the same argument applies). But I’ll be damned if my money has to go to people who aren’t even citizens of my same nation.

      1. You do realize that refugees and immigrants aren’t the ones actually taking your money, right Jimbo?

        1. Of course he doesn’t. He believes in re-carnation like the heathen Chinee-lover he is.

          1. Why do you hate affordable financing for borrowers with poor credit, HM?

            1. Why do you hate affordable financing for borrowers with poor credit, HM?

              Because life is like a hurricane.

              1. That’s number 3 on my sex music playlist, btw.

                1. I imagine it stops the kids’ crying.

                2. How did they get the son of a Russian oligarch to play the recorder for them? (is it a recorder? I’m bad with instrument names.)

                  1. That appears to be an EWI, and that guy is clearly a Miami Beach porn producer. Geez Jesse.

                    1. Now that I’ve heard him speak and found out his name is Steven Sweat, I’d have to agree with you. It’s hard to tell with husky, pasty men wearing gold chains and sunglasses indoors though.

                  2. That’s an EWI*!

                    *Number 7 on the sex-music playlist

        2. So they don’t live in this country, or if they do, they aren’t poor? Because that’s the only way people aren’t taking my money.

          1. Refugees and immigrants aren’t taking your money. The government is taking your money. After that it’s no longer yours.

            1. It a fair point. If they government wasn’t giving it to them, they’d just keep it for themselves. Now, that assumes that the refugees and immigrants aren’t voting.

          2. What if every Syrian immigrant who wasn’t working and paying taxes was required to make falafel and hummus for poor people, in lieu of WIC or other welfare programs? Would that allay your concern?

              1. Not enough roadkill here to supply the demand.

              2. I don’t know what that is, but I wanna try it.

                1. Back up. You haven’t had shawarma?

                  1. Not everyone lives in a vasty metropolis, Nicole!

                    1. For god’s sake, Riven, every once in a while, you gotta get out of rural South Dakota or whatever the hell yokel place you’re living in. Are you accessing the Internet via semaphore?

                    2. I BET YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE MALORT IN MONTANA!

                    3. I BET I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS! HAH!

                      Also, re: getting out of the sticks… Why would I leave the last best place? It has all of my favorite things here: no people.

                    4. All you give a shit about is “no kids.”

                    5. What else is there to give a shit about?

                      I mean, besides lifting, drugs, certain kinds of sex, pizza, and ice cream?

                    6. Blech! I can smell the lactose wafting off of you.

                    7. Breath it in, HM. Deep breaths. Don’t act like you don’t want this.

                    8. I wouldn’t know. Your Steam profile is set to private, so I can’t judge you by your preferred gaming genres.

                    9. Mostly FPS, occasional ventures into other genres with the exception of sportsball games, RTS games, or racing type games.

                      Maybe you should just add me and then my profile won’t be private. And maybe we can shoot some zombies or nazis! Or zombie nazies!

                    10. It would never work. I’m a god-game simulation, Crusader Kings II historical grand strategy kinda guy.

                      Still…I’ll add you as I’m always down for nazombie shooting.

                    11. Most excellent.

                      I need to update my machine because I think the most recent zombie-fps it runs halfway decent is L4D2. But sometime! Yes! The gaming!

                    12. What else is there to give a shit about?

                      I mean, besides lifting, drugs, certain kinds of sex, pizza, and ice cream?

                      Pooping.

                    13. Ok, I missed that one. You are right.

                    14. certain kinds of sex

                      The first three words of this are how you know you’re a girl.

                    15. The first three words of this are how you know you’re a girl.

                      Not necessarily!

                    16. I’m wondering if you really know what I mean.

                  2. Avengers quote, from The Most Libertarian Super-Hero*.

                    *unless you count the original Question – are Objectivists a species of Libertarian or not?

                    1. are Objectivists a species of Libertarian or not?

                      Lawd have mercy!

                    2. Did I just poop on the floor? That was a serious question – remember, I came from country (Yugoslavia) that never acknowledged Ayn Rand exists (wait, I saw Gary Cooper in Fountainhead on TV once), to one where Ayn Rand still doesn’t exist (Canada – no, I never heard of Rush till I was like 25).

                    3. Most contemporary Objectivists would consider themselves libertarian or at least in common cause with them. Rand herself dismissed libertarians as the hippies of the right.

                      And the Question got a lot more interesting when Dennis O’Neil rebooted him into a more generally philosophical vigilante.

                    4. The Question is a poor man’s Mr. A.

                      And Nu-52 Question sucks giant rancid donkey dick.

                      Just had to get that out there.

                    5. If Ayn Rand were here to hear you compare her to libertarians, she would angrily chain smoke while scowling, which differs from her normal chain smoking in that she does it at a faster pace while periodically pausing to insult you for your collectivist taste in music and misunderstanding of Aristotle.

                    6. Oh, my. Go on, Irish….

                      If, say, Laren Southern made videos of this she could make MILLIONS!

                    7. Ayn Rand once told Murray Rothbard that he should ‘find a more rational mate’ because his wife refused to leave the Presbyterian Church even after Ayn Rand gave her a pamphlet supposedly ‘disproving’ the existence of God.

                      She was basically a straw atheist made manifest in flesh.

                    8. Tony Stark is no libertarian. His money all comes from defense contracts and war profiteering. He also headed up the Registration side of the Civil War and he was the director of SHIELD for a while.

                    9. In the Marvel movies (So far), Stark is pretty Libertarian, now that he cancelled defense contracts, and told the Senate committee that was grilling him “I privatized world peace. You’re welcome.”

                      I fully expect him to shit the bed with Civil War arc, yes.

                  3. Back up. You haven’t had shawarma?

                    AKA “Arby’s with different toppings”…

        3. The refugees wouldn’t come here without having all their expenses paid by US taxpayers. I’d welcome those who can pay their own way or are sponsored wholly by voluntary contributions from private individuals or institutions.

      2. We get it: you’re a fascist.

        And before you get all shirty about that term, you’re advocating the existence of a welfare state means you should be able to control who reproduces, by force. So yeah, that’s what you are.

      3. This character is too depressing, man. Stop it.

    2. I’m going to remember this for the day you come pleading to Canada for asylum after Trump/Sanders/Clinton/modern Caesar-proxy declares you an unperson. KEEP THE SNOWBACKS OUT.

      1. “I wanna see if they have any cool stuff behind that wall!”

        1. Best South Park ever.

          “You got the Maple Fever, boy?”

  6. Trump and Syrian refugees? Thanks a lot, Matt.

  7. So would Trump’s hair damage a woodchipper in any non-repairable way?

    1. Possibly, but what’s worse, could you imagine having to clean the woodchipper? Strong pass.

      1. Nah, after Trump you just run a bunch of stale bread through. That will clean it.

        1. I thought it was uncooked rice, like cleaning out a coffee grinder…

          1. How do you clean out a coffee grinder?

            I’ve been using mine to grind, uh, other things… and I accidentally bought whole beans instead of ground yesterday. Advice is much appreciated.

            1. Uncooked rice, seriously. About a 1/4 cup. Reduce it to dust.

              1. … Can I decarb the rice mixture after that? 😛

                1. Or cook it into congee.

                  1. Yes. Going to make myself some green congee…

                    1. ICWYDT.

                    2. Feel free to come closer to see, Hamster… Step into my office. 😉

              2. Yeah, if you have a clean brush afterwords it’s good for cleaning out the rice dust. If not wipe it out with a towel or something and it’s good as new.

                I have to do it occasionally when I need to grind up spices or something and don’t want them to taste like a trashy starbucks drink.

                1. I appreciate the help, y’all, very much.

          2. Why would you waste rice like that? Just throw out the grinder and switch to tea.

              1. Look I’m not sure what buttsex smells like, but I’m pretty sure it takes a very refined palette to distinguish it from the smell of brewing coffee.

                1. *gives Hugh a slow stare that goes on for ever so slightly too long*

                  *goes back to third cup of coffee*

                2. As a strong proponent for both, I can tell you that those two smells are very much different.

                  If you’re unable to distinguish the difference… I’m a little worried that you’re doing one or both activities incorrectly.

                  1. I’m a little worried that you’re doing one or both activities incorrectly.

                    Oh, don’t even try to lie and say you’ve never had a Colombian Trombone!

                    1. I can neither confirm nor deny* my participation in said activities.

                      *Because I don’t know what that is and I don’t want to look it up at work xD

                3. You really can’t tell the difference between buttsex and brewing coffee, Hugh?

                  Really?

                  Why don’t you drop by for some coffee tomorrow then?

    2. That’s only a problem if you go the head first approach. And why would you do that?

      Note to all you idiot lawyers out there: the previous statement was sarcasm. My advise was intended for entertainment use only. In reality I have no expertise in the use of woodchippers. Do not sue me if someone’s woodchipper is actually damaged as a result of anything I may or may not have said.

      1. You just hit on the real problem / solution – we need to begin the woodchipper cleansing by feeding it most of the lawyers.

  8. How the fuck did I miss this stupid shit?

    Matt Breunig yearns for socialist utopia and it’s hilarious.

    True freedom requires freedom from destitution and freedom from the demands of the employer. Capitalism ensures neither, but a universal basic income, if successful, could provide both.

    If there’s one thing I know, it’s that paying shitloads of people to not work never ends poorly. I mean, just look at Sweden! The 65% of Somalian immigrants who aren’t working are clearly going to wind up happy and successful due to sitting around and collecting massive amounts of Swedish welfare.

    1. … universal basic income…

      It’s come down to proposing money is magic. *poof* Oh, look, money!

      1. Printing machines’ noise does not sound like “poof.”

    2. NAP violation! Extra Mal?rt for you!

      1. Where’s my NAP violation? Do you mean it was a NAP violation to post this because of the harm it will do the psyche of the commenters.

        1. Yes, yes I do.

      2. Wait, can you just issue a Mal?rt penalty like that?

        1. Who’s going to stop me?

          1. This is why we can’t have anarchy, Nicole.

            1. I am anarchy, mf.

              1. That was the hottest thing you’ve ever said.

                1. And not you, jesse. My anaconda don’t want none unless you have an area of soil-covered land in which grasses can grow lush and verdant, son.

    3. One theme of Bruenig’s work is that he refuses to use an analysis of poverty that is the same across all nations and uses an analysis where every nation’s poverty rate is unique to them. He also will claim America has a ‘small welfare system’ because we have a welfare system that is a smaller percentage of GDP than other countries, but this completely ignores that America’s GDP is so much higher than most of those other countries that in terms of real money we actually give people more money per capita than most nations in Europe. The US GDP per capita is 30% higher than Britain’s, so even if they use a higher percentage of their GDP on welfare, we can still be spending more real money.

      Therefore, what you should want is economic growth rather than more welfare because if we keep spending the same percentage of GDP on welfare, w/ economic growth people would still see an increase in their checks. On the other hand, if you have no economic growth like France (or really the entire continent of Europe), over time welfare payments will stagnate.

    4. This part is precious:freedom from the demands of the employer

      Freedom from people expecting you to do something for them prior to giving them money for that agreed upon work.

      They can take our lives but they can never take our right to demand free shit in return for nothing!!

      1. Also, apparently ‘freedom from the demands of the state’ is apparently not a concern. Despite the fact that my employer doesn’t show up at my house, beat me up and throw me into a cage because I missed a day of work.

        1. State doesn’t make “demands”, comrade. It merely make suggestions conducive to better outcomes for all. Now, I think we can all agree, if you oppose said suggestions, you oppose better outcome for the poor and the destitute, which is an act of aggression. So now faithful servants of the state come to correct you, and you aggress against them, forcing them to defend, not their lives, for they understand those are of little value, but lives of others.
          That you could even write such a thing shows that you need better education. You are fortunate, comrade, that the state shall provide the very thing!

      2. That was really special. The entire thing sounds like it was a cross between Swift and Orwell.

    5. Ah, ye olde “I’m not free unless everyone else is my slave” argument. It’s a classic!

    6. True freedom requires freedom from[…]

      That is the usual Marxian boilerplate, very often repeated by Tony in case you noticed. Marxians assure us that freedom means being cocooned from the vicissitudes of life, but it is all a sham. They equivocate by confusing freedom (the ability to act without undue hindrance) with avoiding.

      1. Yes, the only legitimate to end that sentence is with “the government”.

      2. Tony’s schtick is more that democratic meddling is also a type of freedom. So we are infringing his freedom to tell the rest of us what to do.

        1. Except when democratic meddling goes against things he likes. Then that’s tyranny.
          I’ll believe in lefties being pro-democracy when they start campaigning against gay marriage recognition in states where voters rejected it.

    7. But not freedom from the demands of the state and collective! ONWARD, COMRADE!

  9. Can we finally send the Statue of Liberty back to those stinky, cheese-eating cowards?

    1. AND WE’LL MAKE THEM PAY FOR SHIPPING.

      -Trump

    2. There’s nothing wrong with the statue. The idiotic poem written by a socialist that got attached to it after the fact, on the other hand…

    3. The Statue of Liberty was given in honor of US independence and the right of the US to make its own laws

      It had nothing to do with immigration.

      It was not until years later that that stupid poem was attached to the outside.

      1. Two Euro commies defending the Statue. My grandfather did not fight the Nazis so that a couple of French-loving, Commie sympathizers can come to my country and defend a statue. GET OUT AND GO TO EUROPE.

  10. “Did you ever see a migration like that? They’re all men! And they’re all strong-looking guys!”

    Yeah, last fucking thing this country needs is any strong young men.

    “Why aren’t they fighting to save Syria? Why are they migrating all over Europe?”

    Yet whenever somebody puts forth any serious criticism of this country, he’s told he if doesn’t like he should leave (by which one presumably means “migrate all over Europe”).

      1. Perfect! Something to go with my tiny sheep and my pony, that’s just about this big.

    1. I think the assumed part of “go to Canada/France/Sweden” is “if they’ll have you (and they won’t)”.

  11. I don’t have much faith in Obama making arbitrary decisions about anything. And deciding that he’s going to bring 185,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years? That doesn’t do anything to make me feel better about Obama making more arbitrary decisions.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/jo…..1442768498

    This is a President whose default PR tactic is being willfully obtuse. Don’t you know ObamaCare is going to make healthcare more affordable for the middle class, make America more competitive, and bring down the deficit, too? Ditto his sale to the general public of Libya, TARP, Dodd-Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his Iran deal, and his “no Congress needed” Paris Climate Change Agreement Treaty forthcoming in December.

    I believe Obama sees it as his righteous duty to inflict unnecessary risks and pain on America. I think he buys into the “God damn America” narrative and sees himself as righteous vengeance for American racism, American capitalism, and the general attitude of entitlement of the American middle class. Why they think they’re entitled to everything–from prosperity to security!

    Well, Obama will fix that.

    Because our destabilization of Iraq was one of the primary causes of this refugee crisis, we probably have a moral obligation to help them. Helping them doesn’t need to include bringing 100,000 a year to the U.S.

  12. I have to admit I’m having a tough time distinguishing the clever parodies of xenophoic assholes from the actual xenophobic assholes in this thread.

    1. Theoretically, there may be reasons to worry about refugees from an anti-American cesspool of terrorism that aren’t necessarily about a fear of xenos.

      1. Xenos terrify me

    2. Please don’t let this be the one time everyone takes me seriously.

      1. You know that nobody has ever taken you seriously.

        1. Are you serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

        2. I would question the intelligence of anyone who did.

      2. Whatever, Captain Biggetpants

        1. Clever typo? Or pothole on the road to calling my ass fat?

          *considers carefully*

          1. A fat ass is a positive attribute, and if I remarked on your ass in such a way you should consider it complimentary. However, I would never compliment a woman on this board, because I am a classy gentleman.

      3. You’re a girl. No one has ever taken you seriously.

        1. Still second-best to Playa, I see.

          1. Well, he’s barely American, though.

            1. This is why he’s always barefoot and in the kitchen, with a pregnant wife. We should have better explained how that whole thing was supposed to work.

    3. Hey, I’m fine with immigrants, but there’s no way I’m allowing foul xenos into the Imperium of Man.

      1. Well argued, Inquisitor Titor! I shall brook no more talk of this “Greater Good” that foul Tau spread!

  13. We should also remember that there aren’t any expressly pro-American factions in Syria.

    Even the Christians there resent us for being against their protector, Assad.

    And someone should note how ironic it is that security threats seem to be legitimate with Obama depending only on what he’s trying to sell us at the moment.

    Sorry, but the NSA has to sift through your phone calls–it’s the only way we can keep you safe. And while you’re chewing on that, here’s 185,000 Syrian refugees.

    1. All those refugees flooding into Europe are getting along great with the native populations. What’s the worst that could happen?

      1. Hordes of surly religionists laying around plotting how to overthrow secular governments?

        We have that here.

        1. Well, to be fair, those plots seem to be by the FBI.

      2. Hmmm…time to invest in hand grenade futures?

        1. They still have a lot of 6.5mm Mausers out in the Swedish countryside? I bet that ammo will be in high demand before long.

          1. Maybe, if these assholes gave a shit about countryside. The current lot seems to prefer taking over urban areas, and waiting for the countryside to die out.

  14. Any suggestions for a good skeptical look at the progressive era?

    1. You might need to write that book yourself.

    2. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Great Depression

      1. Or “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal”

        1. Read it. Is it too much to ask that writers of Paul Johnson’s caliber and talent write lengthy, detailed books conveniently tailored to my interests?

    3. “The Triumph of Conservatism” is supposed to be good. Written by a leftist about how reactionary and conservative the progressive era really was.

  15. And Trump will cut taxes $12 trillion (over 10 years) while increasing spending.

    He has learned the GOP playbook. Give him credit for that.

    1. Funny. Sounds a lot like the Obama tax cuts, to me.

  16. DEY TUK RRR JERRRRRBSZZZ!

  17. “As for why the strong-looking guys among the refugee population aren’t “fighting to save Syria,” that may be due to the fact that Syria is a murderous dictatorship riven by a brutally sectarian civil war that has killed upwards of 300,000 and displaced 4 million people, with very little long-term prospects aside from abject misery, poverty, and death. A fight whose main participants include Bashar al-Assad, ISIL, Hezbollah, the Islamic Front and suchlike is not one whose virtuous side is easy to pick out. Young strong men are always the first conscripts of wars they might not be inclined to fight, as Donald Trump surely remembers from his multiple Vietnam deferments.”

    Matt the Neo-con-cosmotarian

    Has all the disadvantages of being a deeply hated liberal ideology and none of the advantages of being a warmonger.

    “Donald Trump surely remembers from his multiple Vietnam deferments.””

    Avoided Nam……I don’t like the guy Matt. Quit trying to make me vote for him.

    1. “Vietnam deferments”

      Here is a map of the world with lines that pass through the US and Vietnam.

      http://www.worldinhabit.com/wp…..rge2-1.jpg

      Matt do you have a map of the world with lines from Syria to Syria?

      Just asking for no particular reason…..

      1. Congrats, Josh. You’ve passed the stage of insanity where your thoughts were delusional but coherent into the stage where you just make absolutely no sense to external observers. Soon your thoughts will make no sense even to yourself and your mind will be lost forever in a maelstrom of gibbering delirium.

        1. Seems pretty clear. He’s saying there is a difference in protecting your own backyard vs flying halfway across the world to protect someone else’s. It’s similar to the argument that the obligation to feed and care for your own children does not confer and equal obligation to feed and care for a starving child in Africa.

        2. I have another insane question that is probably too opaque for you to understand:

          What audience is Matt reaching for when he tries to shame someone for draft dodging during the Vietnam war? Is that audience libertarian?

      2. MOAR RED LINEZ!!!111!!!

  18. “Syrians traveling by boat to Europe”

    Here is a map of Alexander the Great’s travels

    http://www.conservapedia.com/i…..ex-map.jpg

    I notice a land mass between the lands of Canaan and Greece….I wonder what they call that land now. Sure looks formidable. Filled with dragons, evil wizards and Trojans maybe…..

    1. Trojans!
      There’s the solution! Arm the “refugees” then tell them to go siege Troy! Solves the problem for ten years, and, when they take the city, they’ll have enough plunder to be sated. Plus, we might get some epic poetry out of it.

      1. How are condoms supposed to help a situation like this?
        Trump has already been conceived, it’s a bit too late to prevent that disaster.

  19. Syrians traveling by boat to Europe

    Since we know that many of them aren’t Syrians, let’s stop saying that they all are, shall we?

    1. Syrian bunny rabbits are being used in lab experiments.

  20. This open-border idiocy from Matt Welch and his equally stupid cohort Nick Gillespie are the main reasons I STOPPED my print subscription to Reason magazine and seldom visit the website.

    Get the truth about how Teddy Kennedy opened America’s borders to the 50-year plague of ignorant immigrants turning the nation into a one-party — DEMOCRAT — dictatorship.

    “The war on America turns 50”

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-30.html

  21. “The war on America turns 50”

    http://www.anncoulter.com

    She’s only fifty? Hell, she looks lots older!

  22. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  23. “The Syrians that the United States has been accepting as refugees?after an average screening time of 18 to 24 months?are not “all men” or “all strong-looking guys,” regardless of whatever images are coming out of Europe (which is a different continent, one that is more accessible from North Africa and the Middle East by boat).”

    Your biases are showing Reason. You can’t expect a busy professional like the Donald to know such obscure details such as whether or not two countries are on the same continent. But you can bet before he becomes president he’ll find the next Christopher Columbus to advise him on such matters.

  24. the extent to which donald trumps campaign is fueled by three things, 1) hatred of immigrants 2) hatred of china and 3) personality (to the extent you can call it that), is truly remarkable. if we ever run out of energy sources, he could well become a substitute, though i don’t know if he’d qualify as clean energy.

  25. Good. Get all of them out of the country.

  26. I think America should allow more legal immigration by issuing one million diversity lottery visas each year and opening that program up to people from all countries. That being said, supporting immigration to the USA is a relatively cheap way for someone to feel morally superior.

    Imigrants have to live somewhere once they arrive in the country. That means building more homes for them here. Try supporting home construction in your town, like I did, and you will discover how much Dems in the Northeast hate the prospect of newcomers moving in.

    moschino clutch

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.