Donald Trump

How is Donald Trump Going to Make America Great Again If His Supporters Are a Bunch of Losers?

Anti-immigration sentiment is part of what's making America not great, or at least a symptom of it.

|

South Park

I saw an interesting tweet from Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump this weekend, about how Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio were "VERY weak on illegal immigration" and how the "country will be overrun!" because of it. It's nothing new rhetoric-wise for Trump, who appears to have made the calculated decision that adopting an anti-immigration stance would provide the largest return on investment on the campaign trail.

A few years ago a Republican political operative told me that illegal immigration gets Republican base voters even more animated than the war on terror. Defending immigrants, in other words, was even riskier than defending civil liberties against the war on terror.

What was particularly interesting to me about the tweet was the formulation—that the U.S. would be "overrun" by immigrants. And? If the U.S. were overrun by immigrants interested in taking jobs, what exactly is wrong with that? It seems it would comport to Trump's goal of "making America great again."

From the beginning of American history, immigration has made the country "great." Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, a treatise that probably did more than any other to radicalize the colonists in favor of the cause of independence in the 1770ss. Paine arrived to the colonies as an immigrant from England, in 1774, and Common Sense was published less than two years later. The wave of immigration at the turn of the 20th century helped propel the United States ahead of European powers economically and politically.

Immigration in the 21st century can do the same, if the United States government got out of the way of peaceful people trying to enter the country and the employers who want to hire them. The idea that immigrants are a burden on the welfare system is a persistent but wholly inaccurate myth.

The wonderful thing about Twitter is it lets people engage with political, thought, cultural, and other "leaders," without the professional media or handlers getting in the way. I tweeted a quip at Trump about how these immigrants overrunning the country could actually "make America great again," Trump's campaign catch phrase. Donald Trump has probably not read it, but a bunch of his supporters have, and yesterday I got a flurry of tweets about how the border had to be secured so that American jobs would be secured.

The "national security" aspect of the push for a "secure border" isn't what animated the anti-immigration crowd as much as the fear that "they took our jobs." This is also wholly inaccurate—immigrant workers don't displace the native-born. Even more, they help native workers be more productive.

If national security and the war on terror got Republican base voters as hot and bothered as immigration does, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) would be doing a lot better. He promises to crush ISIS and all terrorists, but he also believes the U.S. should, more or less, welcome immigration.

Donald Trump wants to "make America great again," but his campaign is based on exploiting the fears of people who believe they're entitled to more from the U.S. economy than they're getting, people who believe they are not doing as well as they could be not because of any personal failings or a lack of a sufficient work ethic or just hard luck, but because the border isn't secure and so the illegal immigrants are taking the good-paying job the average Trump supporter would have.

I'm not one to call anyone a loser, but Donald Trump is, and it's hard to imagine he doesn't realize that's what many of his supporters are.

NEXT: Two American Jews out of 6.5 million support boycotting Israel

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. If you let immigrants into our camp, they’ll snatch people away and you can’t stop them. They’re seemingly stronger than we are, and they have the answers to the secret of our current predicament that they won’t share. No, wait, I might be thinking of The Others on Lost. Did you know “Ethan” was Tom Cruise’s cousin? True story.

  2. Something I found kicking around:

    http://www.immigrationpolicy.o…..often-myth

    “The first “illegal” immigrants were people, like the Chinese, who were banned from entering the U.S. The Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882. Over the years, immigration laws were passed that restricted certain categories of persons from immigrating, but no numerical limitations or quotas existed. Those persons barred from immigrating included Asians (except Japanese and Filipinos), prostitutes, paupers, polygamists, persons with “dangerous and loathsome contagious disease,” persons likely to become a public charge, anarchists and radicals, the “feebleminded” and “insane,” and the illiterate. The vast majority of people who arrived at a port of entry were allowed to enter. Of course, some people lied about their health and political beliefs and entered “illegally.” The Immigration Service excluded only 1 percent of the 25 million immigrants from Europe who arrived at Ellis Island between 1880 and World War I.”

  3. I want know when trump is going to get though on newborns. They don’t contribute to the economy, they get an automatic 13 years of education welfare and then they come in and do my job for less when they hit 18! Make America Great Again! We need vagina security. No new babies!

    1. Ben Carson will fight you every step of the way.

      1. I’ll just throw a cross in a sinkhole. He’ll be obligated to chase after it, right?

        1. Hopefully.

        2. Seventh-day Adventist I don’t know about.

          /The Donald

          1. I assume some of them are decent people.
            /Don

            1. “This Jesus Christ character – bleeding out of his palms, bleeding out of his….whatever….” – Teh Dumbnald

  4. From what I’ve heard and read, the fig leaf used to deny there’s anything racist about opposing Latin immigrants is that the Trumpaloes have no problem with “legal” immigration.

    So why not just ask them if they’d support making legal immigration much easier and less expensive in exchange for some more border security theater?

    If they don’t mind the educated Indian engineer terking der jerbs because he came here legal why not let the Mexican fry cook do so?

    1. Why not ask Republicans and Democrats currently in office?

    2. Because just like Democrats compromising on spending cuts in exchange for tax increases, the tax increases come today and the spending cuts seem to get forgotten about or ignored whenever the next “crisis” occurs.

  5. Trump will never win the general election. My suggestion to Reason writers is to get ahead of the curve and start telling us what we should expect under future President Clinton.

    1. We should expect a lot of this.

    2. While there are many Americans who will vote for Hillary simply because she has a vagina, there are plenty who will not vote for her for precisely the same reason. And many of them have vaginas themselves. Part of why Romney lost was because his pick for VP has a vagina. So I’m not so sure that Hillary is inevitable. Trump may just squeak in.

      Either way we’re doomed.

      1. “On one issue, at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women.”
        ? H.L. Mencken

      2. Squeak in, hell no, it will be a landslide when Trump announces just before the election that he is really a women trapped in a mans body. He gets the women vote, he gets the man vote, he gets elected President for Life!!!!!!!

      3. Paul Ryan has a vagina? Bwuh?

        1. McCain, my bad.

          1. Own it, dude. That was an awesome johno.

    3. Expect warmongering, cronyism, lying, and theft on a grand scale.

      1. So, business as usual then.

    4. I never worried about Trump winning the Republican primaries. Then it hit me with certainty that he will be the VP non.
      He will bring in voters in wishywashy states and serve as a perfect bulletproof vest. These seem to be the two criteria for being VP these last several decades..

  6. WHYCOME MEXICAN TAKE MAH JOB?!? ME HIGHLY SKILLED!

    1. DERKA DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

  7. What Reason should be looking at is if immigrants generally vote in libertarian ideals. There’s no making America Great Again until the mindset of individualism takes hold again.

    1. It doesn’t matter how they would vote if they are not made citizens. I think that is the logical compromise. Let productive non-criminal people come here to work but don’t give them citizenship and a vote. They “come out of the shadows” and contribute but we don’t need to worry about illiterate yahoos from third world shit holes voting to turn us into Venezuela’s northern branch.

      1. What stops them from voting illegally? It’s not like there are any mechanisms in place to prevent voter fraud. All they need to do to register to vote is show up with an electric bill addressed to them. That’s it. Now they’re voters.

        1. Yes this does assume they don’t commit voter fraud en mass although I think that is rather addressable. We are talking about proposed policy not policy in a vacuum. I think we can accommodate the level of identification needed to open a savings account if it brings you peace of mind in my hypothetical world.

        2. Voter fraud is worth it if just one more elderly poor minority can vote who wasnt able to before. (Possibly because they are legally dead or already voted)

          1. If it saves just one zombie vote don’t we have to at least try?

      2. I have a problem with taxation without representation.

        1. I have a much bigger problem with people voting for statism. And as a practical matter your vote has no bearing on the outcome.

          Also thought experiment. Would you prefer a libertarian country where only a small subset were allowed to vote or a socialist shit hole with the full franchise? Voting is a tool and is overrated. Protecting fundamental rights is much more important and when voting interferes with that I have no problem restricting it.

          1. Self-determination is very important, but yes, a republic will eventually vote itself into oblivion. Unfortunately, removing the right to choose one’s own government (“wrong” or not) is also statism which will lead to totalitarianism, so we’re making lateral moves here. Meh, what can you do.

            1. If that government winds up being libertarian is it really statism? I get the danger of not having a democratic component in government but it doesn’t logically follow that everyone should be allowed to vote if the result of that is a government that is more oppressive. I think the real danger is that in restricting voting you give people who want to violently oppose the system a legitimate talking point.

              In any case it isn’t as if taxation without representation doesn’t exist today. When I visited Europe everything I bought had a VAT tax built in. Yes I was a shorter term guest than someone working here for a few years but the same argument applies. My sense is preventing guest workers from voting is not in the same category as say preventing all women from voting.

              1. If that government winds up being libertarian is it really statism?

                Governments don’t “wind up” libertarian. Governments are one-way ratchets. To “wind up” libertarian a government would have to be willing to repeal laws and programs. In practice that rarely happens ever, and has never happened on the wholesale level that would be required to “wind up” libertarian. The reason is that there is no incentive for government to shrink itself, and every incentive for it to grow itself. Parasites do not have the sense to keep their host alive. They will kill it whenever possible.

                1. If you limited the vote to only libertarians you would end up with that result. That is the point of this argument here. What is more important a government that protects your human rights or one that lets everybody vote. I argue the former is more important and it is perfectly legitimate to tax guest workers but not allow them to vote if their votes are for more statism.

    2. You’re knocking all of those strawmen out of place after they’ve been so carefully erected. That’s not very nice.

  8. Let’s put it in terms a libertarian could understand- if you are at your annual Star Trek convention and when your mom is dropping you off at the entrance you see a bunch of Star Wars fans enter into the convention center and proceed to only discus Star Wars and refuse to learn Klingon you’d be mad. You wouldn’t go oh more people means more money for the concessions people.

    1. Fuck off, cunt.

      1. Whycome you so angry?

        1. Whycome you so stoopid? Go vote for Trump, you clueless xenophobe!

    2. Even worse, they sneak in the back door while you had to pay extra for your VIP all access badge which does not even get you in the door first.

      1. The real question is who gets more laid – Star Wars fans or Trekkies?

        1. Trick question,neither ever get laid. The winner is the guy who sells popcorn at the conventions, he’s considered to be a go getter with prospects

    3. So if I understand you correctly. The problem isn’t that you love immigration but oppose illegal immigration. Your real problem is the possibility that someone pronounces “murica” incorrectly while in line for funnel cakes?

    4. LMAO. Perfect.

  9. Trump would be much better off pointing out the stupidity of open borders AND a generous welfare state. But he doesn’t seem much interested in cutting down the welfare state.

    1. He is following Reason Magazine example since I have seen very few articles here about cutting the welfare state

      Even when the Agriculture Department spending bill is mentioned they focus on the 10% that goes to farmers and not the 90% that goes to Food Stamps and other welfare

      1. STOP PICKING ON REASON.

  10. Look people, we have enough Mexican restaurants already. My town has at least 5, not counting Chipotle and Taco Bell. There’s even a Peruvian chicken place just around the corner (you must try fried plantains). By comparison, there isn’t one decent Mediteranean, Sushi or Indian joint within 5 miles. The Italian restaurant has to double and serve kabobs, which is just wierd, and they have no idea how to make dolmathes properly. I vote for fewer Hispanics and more South Asians and Lebanese. I just want a decent falafel, that’s all I ask.

    1. I have a suggested solution to the falafel shortage. There are plenty of fit and healthy young men willing to leave the Middle East for a better life. Right now they are settling in Europe and it is a mistake to let the Europeans gobble up all the increased wealth generating potential and cultural diversity that these men bring with them. Why not charter cruise ships to bring in any who want to come here? That would solve the falafel shortage as well as provide, as in the great days of free migration, workers to fill the labor needs of the railroads, mines, steel mills and sawmills necessary to build the new America.

    2. We actually have more Mediterranean places near us than Mexican. Most of the Mexican restaurants we do have suck which is unfortunate because I love that cuisine. Some Mediterranean dishes I really like, but not a big fan of falafel’s actually.

  11. Open borders and the welfare state are a recipe for disaster. How can Libertarians, who have reasoned and defensible stances on so many issues, get this one so consistently wrong?

    1. I assume it’s for the same reason they gleefully sacrificed freedom of association at the alter of same sex marriage, though I can’t fathom what that reason is.

      1. Assuming you are talking about the Orgeon baker story and ones like it I don’t know any libertarians who think that is acceptable. You do?

        1. It was predictable, and predictable consequences are not unintended.

          1. I didn’t think it was predictable but even if it was it was due to deliberate decisions by actual people. It was not scientific cause and effect.. If there was a ban on short skirts that was lifted and that somehow resulted in more rape it doesn’t mean I am pro-rape. Despite what you or I may think people are lousy at predicting the future and I am pretty sure libertarians who were happy about gay marriage were not supporters of those kind of draconian policies. To say they were is more than a bit of a logical stretch.

            1. It was not scientific cause and effect..

              Oh, come on. When something becomes a civil right, then there will be lawsuits. That’s the whole point.

              1. There are always lawsuits and you don’t need a civil right to get them. We do have a first amendment that protects freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. It was not remotely obvious we would have a situation like the one that came up in Oregon. Even if it was that doesn’t change things. Somebody somewhere will drive high and kill someone if we legalize pot. That doesn’t mean supporting that policy is pro-highway death.

                1. It was not remotely obvious we would have a situation like the one that came up in Oregon.

                  It was completely obvious to myself and several other people who comment on here who had been predicting it at the beginning of the debate. Though for some reason when this subject comes up, many libertarians turn into sniveling leftists who care only for intentions while putting their hands over their ears and yelling “La la la I can’t hear you!” when a non-emotional person talks of actual results of those policies.

                  1. This was not the result of those policies anymore than printing a muslim cartoon is responsible for other people’s decision to go on a murdering rampage. Both were deliberate decisions and as such are the responsibility of the people making those decisions. Blaming people who support gay marriage for some jackasse’s decision to persecute a fundamentalist christian baker is like blaming newspapers for the decision of neanderthal muslims to go on a murderous rampage because their feelings were hurt.

                    Ironically that is a classic leftist way to look at the world.

                    1. I’m simply looking at incentives. Civil rights laws create incentives for lawsuits because they create an opportunity to initiate government force on people who disagree. I don’t know how you can deny that.

                      How intentionally creating an opportunity to initiate government force on people is libertarian, while opposing it is somehow leftist, is something I just can’t figure out. I see it as the exact opposite.

                      And no, it is not at all like blaming a newspaper for printing a cartoon. There’s no government force involved there, so there is no comparison.

                    2. Government force is a secondary issue. What you are saying is the people who are big on gay marriage are responsible for the decision of an Oregon bureaucracy to persecute those icky Christians.

                      The same cause and effect argument applies to the cartoon scenario. Your argument is that this was a predictable outcome. If that is true so was the muslim reaction to those cartoons and by your own rationale we can deem people who support unfettered free speech as somehow being responsible for violent jihad.

                      That is patently absurd.

                    3. No, government force is the primary issue. Libertarians aren’t supposed to support the initiation of government force last time I checked. It goes against the NAP. Use of government force in reaction to the initiation of force is one thing, but saying “No” is not an initiation of force.

                      When something is declared to be a civil right, then there will be an initiation of government force against people who say “No.” That’s the whole point of such legislation. That is why it is created.

                      To argue otherwise is patently absurd.

                2. Alcohol is legal and drunk drivers kill thousands of people yearly. We did try (once) to solve the problem with alcohol (Prohibition), but it caused more problems than it solved. However self driving cars will eventually solve the problem.

              2. It was not scientific cause and effect..

                Oh, fer fuck’s sake. Nothing in human affairs is. You might as well say Hillary has no responsibility for her ambassador getting butchered in Libya because there was no “scientific cause and effect” between her failing/refusing to provide security, and his group getting overwhelmed by a jihadi attack.

                1. “When something is declared to be a civil right, then there will be an initiation of government force against people who say “No.” That’s the whole point of such legislation. That is why it is created.”

                  When someone says bad things about muslims they will lash out and kill people. What is different?

                  Apparently I am the only one on this thread that believes people are responsible for what they do. Believing the laws should be changed to allow gay marriage does not mean that people who won’t bake cakes for them are automatically persecuted. That was a conscious decision by an Oregon bureaucracy and is the sole responsibility of the people involved.

                  As far as the “civil right” angle free speech is a civil right yet a bakery can still tell me I can’t say something they don’t like in their shop. How is that possible with free speech being a civil right?

          2. sarcasmic|10.26.15 @ 9:40AM|#
            “It was predictable, and predictable consequences are not unintended.”

            Let’s see of I have your argument right:
            ‘If it saves just one baker the mental anguish of baking a cake, we should deny constitutional rights to a class of people’.
            Sounds quite similar to:
            ‘If it saves just one child…’

            1. we should deny constitutional rights to a class of people

              *brings up the Constitution*

              *CTRL-F, types “marriage”*

              *comes up empty*

              1. Try “equal protection”; but you knew that didn’t you?
                Don’t toss any happy-horseshit.

                1. Maybe the reason libertarians so willingly sacrifice liberty in these cases is emotion. I mean, the pro-ssm people are certainly passionate. Thing is, policy based upon emotion is generally a bad idea. That’s how leftists pave the road to hell.

                2. I’m curious, myself, about how laws that treat different groups differently are required by “equal protection of the laws.”

          3. 1) Not predictable 2) That doesn’t mean it’s intended.

            You’re stupid and tedious.

        2. Agreed. And I also don’t know any libertarians who are fans of the welfare state. What part of “Fuck you, cut spending” do the cons who criticize us not understand?

          1. The problem is that by cheerleading open borders before the welfare state is actually dismantled, you’re effectively cutting your own throat. You really think Hispanic peasant labor is going to be okay with cutting off the gimmedats?

            Break the welfare state, and then we can determine how wonderful open borders are–leaving aside the whole question as to whether culture matters, which most open borders libertarians assiduously ignore.

            Considering most of the American welfare state was implemented following a period of mass migration of southern and eastern Europeans, who tended to be far more politically radical and sympathetic to Marxist labor agitation, the argument that mass immigration is healthy is simply begging the question. Note that the people who say that “they’ll assimilate!” tend to ignore the fact that the only reasons assimilation actually took place back then was 1) our conceptions of multiculturalism were considered subversive at that time to maintaining a stable society, 2) there was a common consensus as to what constituted American culture and people made an effort to fit in to that consensus, and 3) the country went through two world wars and a depression that forced Americans and immigrants alike to coalesce around a civic ideology or perish. We don’t have anything like that today, unless you consider Mexicans ethnically cleansing black neighborhoods and turning into fat trolls from drinking soda to be assimilation.

            1. As we are learning, again, the primary incentive to assimilate is economic. IOW, if you don’t fit in, you won’t get a good job, etc.

              Welfare, especially a relatively rich welfare state, reduces that incentive. Why assimilate when you can have a better life than you used to living on welfare, and especially when you marinate in multi-culti messaging that you absolutely should not assimilate.

    2. Re: The Grinch,

      Open borders and the welfare state are a recipe for disaster. How can Libertarians, who have reasoned and defensible stances on so many issues, get this one so consistently wrong?

      By the same token, we can’t talk about the notion of birthing children and a welfare state – that’s a recipe for disaster!

      Oh, I thought we were supposed to be logically consistent and not intellectually dishonest. I guess not. Sorry.

      1. Agreed, we aren’t procreating enough poor people so we need to import them.’; have immigrants do the reproduction that Americans won’t do.

      2. The problem is that we don’t need more unskilled labor today. We have plenty of it as there is. What we need is a method of sponsoring those who will be of benefit to us. The best way to do this is to expand those programs that will both finance and encourage skilled and educated people to come here. Which likely will require legislation in Congress to pass.

    3. “Open borders and the welfare state are a recipe for disaster. “

      Sure.

      Except given that very few libertarians actually advocate for what retards describe as “Open Borders”…

      ….and instead that’s just a name used to avoid talking about any kind of immigration policy reform at all…

      ….and the so-called Welfare State (which libertarians also oppose), given that its mostly-cost-neutral towards illegal immigrants in most of the country (in that their tax contributions generally outweigh the cost of any services they to use), is hardly collapsing under the weight of the 10+ million illegals we’ve currently got….

      …it seems like the real problem is the shortage of Adult Diapers you’re helping to generate.

      1. have you read the articles at Reason on this topic? They are pretty freaking OPEN borders.

        “If the U.S. were overrun by immigrants interested in taking jobs, what exactly is wrong with that?”

      2. given that its mostly-cost-neutral towards illegal immigrants in most of the country (in that their tax contributions generally outweigh the cost of any services they to use),

        Seeing as the point of being an illegal immigrant is that people can’t tell that you’re illegal, I have real doubts about the validity of those studies.

        Indeed, the Welfare State is not collapsing. It is metastasizing and will continue to do so until there is a much larger societal collapse. I see that as a bad thing, not a reason to continue feeding the Welfare State.

    4. No they’re not. There is no correlation between immigration and welfarism.

  12. First I don’t think as many people care about immigration as you think. Working immigrants are a blessing to this country. What we care about is a over bloated broken welfare system. Gangs like MS 13 growing in leaps and bounds. Democrats trying to destroy our election system by making voting by non citizens unverifiable. Women popping babies to gain immediate citizenship. Try asking why people want the border secure and may find that people don’t care about keeping out as much as you think. We just want a safe society where others have to follow the same rules as legal immigrants.

  13. It’s great to be the kind of country people want to immigrate to.

    That’s not to say we can’t be more selective about which immigrants we want.

    Instead of admitting everyone’s uncles and cousins, why not focus on people with skills and so on?

  14. Donald Trump wants to “make America great again,” but his campaign is based on exploiting the fears of people who believe they’re entitled to more from the U.S. economy than they’re getting

    Why don’t you all stop kidding yourselves and simply accept the truth that most Americans are socialists who easily succumb to facile and crass appeals to envy and jealousy?

    If you even dare suggest that immigrants are a net benefit to the US thanks to an increased pool of labor, you will have your head chewed-off by Trumpistas who think that immigrants are here to “steal our jobs” and have dirty sex with our daughters… or something.

    1. Yeah Mexican, the only reason anyone would object to the immigration of millions of poor and largely unskilled immigrants from Central America is “envy and jealousy”. It couldn’t be because of the real problems and economic dislocations such a thing creates. It couldn’t be that not everyone in the world is just like you. No. The only reason why Central America is a shit hole is bad luck. It has nothing to do with the culture of the people who live there. And important that population here would in no way make this country more like those countries. Nope. never.

      If there is anyone who is being a Marxist here, it is you. You are not advocated for Marxist economics. You and the rest of the open borders advocates are however, making the Marxist assumption that the only reason why places like El Salvador are poor is because of the exploitation of the West. Sorry, but that is just not true. Those places are poor for a lot of reasons and not the least of which is the culture and attitudes of the people who live there. And those culture and attitudes don’t magically change when the people come here.

      1. The only reason why Central America is a shit hole is bad luck. It has nothing to do with the culture of the people who live there.

        A good part of why those countries are shit holes is a lack of economic liberty. We may think it is bad here, but compared to the rest of the world it’s still the land of opportunity. That and conservative economics still adheres to protectionist/nativist fallacies like there being a static job pool which immigrants push natives out of. The truth is that immigrants increase demand as well as supply, which results in long term economic growth.

        1. A good part of why those countries are shit holes is a lack of economic liberty.

          And the lack of economic liberty is not by accident. It is that way because the society’s themselves don’t value economic liberty.

          1. If their society doesn’t value economic liberty, why do so many leave to seek it elsewhere?

            1. Perhaps some of them aren’t coming here for economic liberty writ large, but merely for their own personal benefit? And perhaps, with that benefit in hand, they will see no reason to side with economic liberty writ large, but will instead support the kind of policies they are used to living with? Because, you know, culture?

        2. Much of Latin America was settled by people who seized large amounts of land from the native peoples and then forced them to work as unskilled labor for their own gain. The settlement of Latin America was on different terms than that of North America where independent individuals settled and farmed under various “homestead” policies.

          In effect most Latin American people are “serfs” to one degree or another ruled by a “white” overclass who “owns” most of the property. The rich are usually “very rich”, there is a small “middle class” of shopkeepers, professionals, and skilled workers, with the rest of the people living in poverty. This reflects the culture of Spain some centuries ago when Latin America was colonized. The major problem is that “property rights” as we of North America see them are quite “underdeveloped” in Latin America. That makes starting any kind of business beyond the “family” size difficult. Establishment of clear land titles and private property (as we have it) will be necessary if Latin America is to ever reach first world status.

      2. Wow, your lack of knowledge on the Encomienda system implemented by the Conquistadors on Central and South America is startling. Their poverty is a result of being exploited for centuries with no control over their own destinies. Native Americans their were slaves with no hope of freedom, and not much has changed for them. Give them a 2nd Amendment and the story would be different.

        1. Wow you total immersion in the Leninist version of history is startling. Those governments were oppressive because they to a large degree represented the desires of the people who lived there. They did not come from nowhere.

          It amazes me how even people who are not on the Left, believe utter Marxist horseshit like this without even realizing it. It really is a march through the institutions.

      3. maybe the people who risk their lives to escape the terrible “culture and attitudes” you despise don’t actually hold them. i mean, good job collectivizing everyone, but it seems to me that the people who make it here generally agree with you that our culture and work ethic is a better way to live.

        why the fuck would you risk your life to leave el salvador only to strive to turn america into el salvador?

        we’re not filling a bus full of the representative el salvador population and bringing them here. it’s somewhat self-selecting, and the harder workers who share your values are the ones getting here.

        1. why the fuck would you risk your life to leave el salvador only to strive to turn america into el salvador?

          You mean like liberals from California and Massachusetts who flee their high-tax, high-regulation progressive paradises for lower-tax, lower-regulation red state enclaves, and proceed to try and turn those places into the areas they fled because it was too expensive and burdensome to live there?

          You sure don’t have an understanding of how cultural migration actually works.

          1. lol.

            the people actually doing the fleeing see the difference and are voting with their feet. they are the conservatives who put up with the shit as long as they could because they liked the ocean or the good restaurants in the big city.

            but we obviously live in different realities so believe whatever.

            1. they are the conservatives who put up with the shit as long as they could because they liked the ocean or the good restaurants in the big city.

              Right, that’s why Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine, and Colorado remain Rock-Ribbed Republican Strongholds.

              Talk about living in a different reality.

            2. Furthermore, why the hell do you think the Democrats are so gung-ho to enact amnesty? You really believe they’d be for open borders if they thought these new arrivals would vote Republican upon gaining citizenship? Maybe they’ve paid attention to Hispanic voting patterns for the last 60 years or so, and you haven’t.

              1. hispanics pay attention to republican hatred of them. and it’s been a terrible missed opportunity for republican idiots to grow their base.

                republicans and hispanics share most of their values: hard working, family oriented, religious, anti-abortion, hate fags, etc. if republicans would stop spewing racist hate all the time, they could’ve had em all.

                but republicans, much like democrats, are idiots.

                1. republicans and hispanics share most of their values: hard working, family oriented, religious, anti-abortion, hate fags, etc. if republicans would stop spewing racist hate all the time, they could’ve had em all.

                  Oh, bullshit. You’ll never find a greater ideology of ethnic chauvinism in the US than in the Hispanic “community.” They make the KKK look positively open-minded. A Central American immigrant will live in the most crime-infested, filthy, dysfunctional barrio imaginable and he’ll still think he and his are superior than the white suburban family who actually pays the taxes that keeps his SNAP card filled up.

                  We’ve heard this “Hispanics are natural conservatives!!” line for decades. It was a joke then and remains a joke today because whatever social conservative sympathies they may hold runs far behind their ethnic tribalism and economic/cultural Marxism that demands they view themselves as perpetually oppressed underdogs. And the Democrats remain masters of pandering to that because encouraging ethnic balkanization is the heart of their ideology.

    2. Hmmmm…”Cheap Labor” which leads to flat incomes…hooray, we should be so happy for the 5% who exploit that cheap labor! Legal Immigration is fine and we I love my immigrant neighbors who worked within the system to get here, but If you reward those ignoring the law, then pretty soon everyone does it, and the actual law is meaningless and largely arbitrary.

      If that is the world you want, then be happy getting randomly punched in the head…

  15. ” If the U.S. were overrun by immigrants interested in taking jobs, what exactly is wrong with that? ”

    Is that the only kind of immigrant to America? Seems a bit strawmannish.

  16. I sincerely hope all reason articles are not as vacuous as this one. Not only does the author lump anyone who is against illegal immigration into a basket of anti-all immigration, he leverages an ad hominem for the rest of his point.

    I wish a reasonable premise could be made that the “anyone asshole is welcome” strategy for Human Resources is effective. A reasoned argument that says that not filtering criminals, Terrorists, pedophiles, and the perpetually indigent is a good idea. If this is true let’s hear the premise. The above nonsense doesn’t approach a reasoned argument.

    Perhaps immigration reform needs to happen, but your thimble deep discussion of jobs fails to even consider the large number of technical positions being taken by foreign nationals. These are not menial jobs, these are white-collar jobs that our children should be competing for and ultimately we accept uncleared, and unverified foreign credentials as long as the salaries are cheap. This drives down salaries for everyone and is a major reason that personal incomes have been flat for 30 years.
    This is indeed a problem and our children understand this, being as media savvy as they are,…but go ahead and stick with your “South Park” ad hominem perhaps that is only what you are truly capable of .

    1. “…the large number of technical positions being taken by foreign nationals. These are not menial jobs, these are white-collar jobs that our children should be competing for and ultimately we accept uncleared, and unverified foreign credentials as long as the salaries are cheap….”

      So protectionism is good for labor? Is labor some special class where the results of protectionism is different from any other?

      1. Actually citizenship is indeed a protected class with these things called …Constitutional Rights. You have heard of them, correct?

        1. Being American doesn’t entitle you to Constitutional rights. Those rights are mostly limitations on the government.

          The only right you’re entitled to for being an American is the right to vote. Everything else you get for being human.

          Also, this kind of thinking scratches my biggest pet peeve with the anti-immigration people. They’re turning welfare into some kind of birthright for native born Americans.

          For instance, there isn’t anything about you being a native born American that makes me feel better about being ripped off by the government to pay for your children’s education. Pay for your own damn children.

          Being born here doesn’t give you a right to a chunk of my paycheck, but when anti-immigration people talk about illegal immigrants sucking up welfare and government services, they necessarily are making a false distinction somehow justifying welfare and government services as a right of citizenship. No, I don’t owe you anything because you were born an American.

          I don’t make any distinctions between American born and foreign born parasites. They’re all parasites. Wanna get rid of welfare and government services? I’ll sign up for that right now! But why make false distinctions between parasites?

          1. when anti-illegal-immigration people talk about illegal immigrants sucking up welfare and government services, they necessarily are making a false distinction somehow justifying welfare and government services as a right of citizenship.

            Tut tut, Ken. Your bias is showing.

            Regardless, I see no reason why somebody who is opposed to welfare in principle can’t be opposed to growing the population that will consume welfare.

            Kinda like I see no reason why somebody who is opposed to having privileged classes of people in principle can’t be opposed to giving privileged status to more and more groups of people.

    2. if your kids can’t compete with foreigners, try raising smarter kids with better skills. or keep whining for free shit you/they don’t deserve like every other progressive idiot.

  17. “Immigration in the 21st century can do the same, if the United States government got out of the way of peaceful people trying to enter the country and the employers who want to hire them. The idea that immigrants are a burden on the welfare system is a persistent but wholly inaccurate myth.”

    It isn’t just the welfare system. It’s also gangs.

    When anti-immigration people are talking about immigration, they’re talking about gangs and welfare. And no, gangs and welfare do not make America great.

    Most of these people who are upset about immigration do not understand that immigration, the war on drugs, and welfare should be understood as three separate issues.

    1. if the United States government got out of the way of peaceful people trying to enter the country and the employers who want to hire them.

      Our current immigration system is designed to give us some assurance that the people trying to move here are peaceful, and they have an employer waiting to hire them.

  18. It’s strange positions like pro-illegal immigration that will doom the Libertarians to being a fringe element in American politics. Why do people hire an illegal (and break the law) rather than remaining a law-abiding citizen? It’s because Illegal aliens undercut the wages of the American worker. If companies had to compete for a limited workforce, they’d be offering better wages for blue-collar work. The more that Libertarians adopt an open-border policy as a talking point, the more that they push themselves permanently into the fringes of national political thought.

    1. Why do people hire an illegal (and break the law) rather than remaining a law-abiding citizen? It’s because Illegal aliens undercut the wages of the American worker.

      Why should it be a crime to hire the “wrong” person for a job? What business is it of the government to tell businesses who they may or may not hire and what they should pay them? The only answer I can think of is the same protectionist economic fallacies that Adam Smith destroyed centuries ago.

    2. “Why do people hire an illegal (and break the law) rather than remaining a law-abiding citizen?”

      Single mothers and working mothers hire them for cheap childcare–so they can go to work.

      The elderly hire them to mow their lawns, etc., so they can live independently. People hire illegal immigrants to take care of their elderly parents for the same reason–so their parents can continue to live independently and stay out of the nursing home.

      Regardless, people shouldn’t have to check with you before they do something. The rest of the world shouldn’t be limited to only being allowed to do things if they make sense to you.

    3. “If companies had to compete for a limited workforce, they’d be offering better wages for blue-collar work.”

      That’s not the way it works. There might be a small percentage of native born Americans who would get paid more, but cheap labor tends to flow to uses that are most price sensitive–so we’re actually talking about a lot of services that wouldn’t exist at a higher price point.

      Working mothers wouldn’t pay double for child support–they’d just stay home. The elderly on fixed incomes wouldn’t pay double for lawn care, etc.–they’d just be forced to sell their homes. People wouldn’t pay double to have someone watch their elderly parents–they’d just put them into a nursing home.

      When the price of labor goes up, people don’t just pay more. They substitute away from using higher cost alternatives.

      In Mexico, all the fast food restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King, et. al.) deliver to your home. It’s because the labor is so cheap. We can’t get labor here cheap enough to do that here in the U.S. We certainly don’t pay twice as much for fast food in order to get it delivered. We just go pick it up ourselves. We don’t pay more for gasoline to have it pumped for us. We pump the gas ourselves. Raising the price of labor doesn’t mean more native born Americans will be paid more.

      Cheap labor just generally makes services available to average working American consumers that we couldn’t afford otherwise.

      1. How is it that we need imported workers when our labor participation rate is at a 40+ year low?

        1. There are a number of things that could account for that.

          Maybe our productivity is so high that we don’t need as many people to do the higher paying jobs as we did before.

          Maybe there are a lot of baby boomers that aren’t retrainable.

          Maybe what those people can do isn’t worth the cost of paying and paying for their health insurance, too, after ObamaCare.

          Maybe the benefits of being a burden on the government are higher than what those people could make even if they were retrained.

          Maybe those people won’t take the jobs that are available–for whatever reason.

          Regardless, we import workers for the same reason we import anything else. In fact, we import manufactured goods from China because the labor over there costs less, don’t we? And isn’t that despite the low labor participation rate over here?

    4. Yes. “Strange.”

      And if only libertarians were for ‘closed borders,’ we’d suddenly get all this support. People would suddenly turn against welfare and regulations. If only we drop this incessant need to leave immigrants alone to travel and work as they please. Gah!!

      Why do people hire an illegal (and break the law) rather than remaining a law-abiding citizen? It’s because Illegal aliens undercut the wages of the American worker.

      Truly, the way for libertarian success is to embrace protectionism.

    5. I hire them because they are below the price at which I would do it myself.

  19. Anti-immigration sentiment (and untermensch sentiment in general) is a predictable by-product of the welfare state.

    Which do you think Americans want to get rid of first – immigrants or the welfare state that perpetuates immigration?

    1. Not sure I agree – there was a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment (or at least, anti-“wrong sorts of” immigrant sentiment) before the welfare state existed.

      1. Yeah, that’s the problem. As with almost any principled position, you will find people who share it for the wrong reasons. And, you will get smeared with their wrong reasons.

        Remember when supporting due process meant you wanted criminals to get off on technicalities? So does SCOTUS, and so the 4th and 5th Amendments are now hollow shells.

  20. I think Donald should explain just which illegals he wishes to exclude and boot out. He wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico, and speaks mainly about drug addled gun wielding Mexican rapists. Does he have a problem with Asian illegals? European illegals? Canadian illegals? Ex-USSR nations? He never mentions them.

  21. Reason Magazine. To whom no tidal wave of illegal immigrants is never enough.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.