Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Anti-Immigration Views Aren't Conservative; Neither Are Many Conservatives'

Where did Donald Trump's sentiments come from?

|

National Review, a great magazine well known for having essentially invented American-style conservatism, seems like it's in an awkward position. Its editors dedicated the most recent issue of the bi-monthly to stopping an ascendant Donald Trump ("Against Trump" was the cover title) for among other things not being a conservative, but then Trump prominently shares the magazine's increasingly open opposition to immigration. Though its editors would almost surely disagree, a possible reason the very much at odds National Review (NR) and Trump are both anti-immigration is because such a stance is itself anti-conservative.

To see why, consider NR's January 25th issue. The always entertaining opening section (titled "The Week") began with the following:

"Trump is wrong. Cruz is a natural-born citizen. But at least Trump is consistent about wanting to stop foreigners from taking jobs from low-skilled Americans."

The part about protecting American jobs for American workers isn't the first time the magazine has expressed such a view. It reads as anti-conservative mainly because conservatism has historically been associated with things like private property rights, small government, free trade and markets, openness to technology, disdain for central economic control, along with dislike of affirmative action. NR's immigration stance arguably runs against all that was previously mentioned, and surely more.

It's wasting words to say that private property is fairly basic to conservatism. It's to conservatism what an engine is to a car. Applied to immigrants, they generally come to the U.S. in order to fulfill stateside demand for their labor (more on this in a bit), yet NR would prefer barriers of the legislative kind to this inflow. Forget about many immigrants trying to escape tyrannical governments decried by NR, forget about how much government would have to grow in order to modestly keep some foreigners out, and forget about whom privately owned businesses would prefer to hire, NR has different views when immigration enters the discussion. While there's much to dislike about the recent spending bill shepherded by House Speaker Paul Ryan, one of NR's biggest critiques of the legislation was that "Republican voters are clearly anxious about large-scale immigration and frustrated that the federal government repeatedly demonstrates no interest in doing anything about it."

NR's stance on immigration unwittingly reveals contempt for the hiring preferences of private business, and this goes well-beyond the hiring needs of companies who might otherwise add "low-skilled Americans" to their roster of employees. About the near-term expansion of the H2-B visa program (visas for non-agricultural or temporary service jobs) in the aforementioned spending bill, NR similarly lamented in "The Week" that it would "needlessly" quadruple "the issuance of visas to foreign workers."

Such a view is interesting beyond what the position needlessly puts NR in on the subject of private property. The magazine is clearly in favor of the latter, but its immigration stance requires it to always be in favor of private property so long as businesses don't presume to hire whom they want.

NR is most certainly for free markets, it would probably dismiss in humorous fashion any legislation from Harry Reid or Bernie Sanders dictating what U.S. businesses need and don't need from a plant & equipment perspective, but when it comes to the most important economic input of all (human), NR presumes to know what businesses require. While in a perfect world U.S. corporations could hire whomever they want from wherever, H-2B visas represent ways for businesses to legally import the workers they desire. Some might respond that they amount to the import of the oxymoron that is "cheap, high-skilled foreign labor," many would quibble for obvious reasons with the description, but even if correct, isn't this a good thing? If free trade is a positive for it (among many other great attributes) giving all American workers raises (think the wondrous inflow of consumer goods from China), why isn't free trade equally good for American businesses in search of the best workers at the best prices?

Taking the wonders of free trade even further, the influx of cheap goods from overseas is most brilliant for it allowing us to focus even more on the pursuit of work that is most commensurate with our skills. That's why we should view the entrance of foreign workers with similar delight. Their arrival, much like the arrival of inexpensive products, will amount to more "hands" such that we're able to specialize our work pursuits even more. Immigration isn't just a signal of a country's prosperity, it's also a driver of it.

So with NR very open about its problems with foreign worker inflows, it makes sense to keep the focus on legislation it dislikes for it once again (in the eyes of NR's editors) "needlessly" expanding the number of foreign workers. One reason NR plainly decries the inflow has to do with the magazine's view that American businesses should look to hire American workers first. But based on such a belief, should businesses actively sunset their use of technologies and commercial advances like computers, foreign call centers, and the internet?

If the above question seems flippant, it's not meant to be. And that's the point. It's safe to say it would be near impossible to find any blurb or column in NR"s history calling for the abolition of what was previously mentioned, but technological advances by their very name lead to the loss of voluminous jobs, including "American" jobs. If foreign workers take American jobs, don't domestic and imported technologies do the same? NR is in no way against U.S. companies accessing technological innovations that improve their operations, but if those same companies express a preference for foreign workers with an eye on enhancing those same operations, NR is fairly explicit that company judgement on the subject of labor is to be trumped by the rule of men in Washington, D.C.

Taking this further, NR has long been one of the most articulate voices against affirmative action. With good reason. Affirmative action cruelly places individuals where their skills wouldn't such that they're more likely to fail, it penalizes those who don't receive preferential treatment based on their gender and/or skin color, and then it needlessly creates disharmony on campus and in the workplace for the attainments of the preferred groups perhaps being privately questioned. Why then, would NR seek to legislate preferential treatment for American workers knowing full well that many U.S. businesses would prefer foreign workers? If affirmative action is cruel to its intended beneficiaries, can't the same be said for legislation meant to promote affirmative hiring of Americans over foreigners?

All this of course presumes that when businesses make an effort to "import" foreign workers that there are willing and skilled Americans who go without the jobs taken by those without a U.S. passport. The latter is a debatable assumption, and one revealed as wanting by the hiring of foreigners in the first place. It's expensive to hire those who don't necessarily know the language, who aren't as assimilated, and who by virtue of being immigrants likely have to travel far to begin the job. That U.S. companies hire foreign workers anyway (and go to great lengths to secure enhanced legal status for them) is a clear signal that they're first and foremost fulfilling a market need.

Yet it's the notion of market needs fulfilled that conservatives seemingly quibble with the most. According to some immigration skeptics, migrants are coming to take advantage of the U.S.'s abundant handouts as opposed to work opportunities. But even if true, what's being described is a welfare or government problem, not an immigration problem. By the previous measure, should government policy promote deportation of immigrants and natives who choose the dole?

The good news is that the welfare/handout narrative isn't as true as conservatives would have us believe. Market signals are fairly clear here. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady pointed out in a recent column about immigration from Mexico, "there were 140,000 fewer Mexicans living in the U.S. in 2014 compared with 2009." Barack Obama's first five years in the White House were 2009-2014, and as conservatives have frequently noted, it was during those years that the U.S. economy experienced the slowest post-recession recovery since the 1930s. Translated, a weak economy made the U.S. a less attractive place for Mexican workers to migrate to.

So while the real economic story is a little bit more nuanced, from an immigration perspective the best path to reduced immigrant inflows is lousy economic policy stateside. Obama and conservatives haven't agreed on much since he reached the White House in 2009, but this odd conservative embrace of anti-immigration policies has ironically found one of its better allies in Obama.

Conservatives also like to point out that government handouts surged during the Obama years. But if immigrants were in fact crossing the border for handouts as conservatives regularly argue, wouldn't the Obama years have coincided with a massive increase in crossings? Isn't Obama all about amnesty as is?

Conservatives plainly dislike President Obama as much as they strongly believe in private property and free markets, but this reveals yet again how conservative disdain for immigration reads as anti-conservative. Border patrolling hasn't kept immigrants from pursuing American abundance (O'Grady reported that in the booming '80s and '90s Mexican immigrants alone grew from 2.2 million to 9.4 million), but to increase it would be anti-conservative for it greatly expanding the size, cost and scope of government. And as the ever expensive – and failed – drug war has hopefully reminded everyone, increased border patrol (or worse from a conservative standpoint: more muscular policing of U.S. businesses) will grow government, but not do much to keep immigrants out. Only a slow economy will repel immigrants, but pursuit of a weak economy would require conservatives to shed nearly all of their deeply held economic beliefs.

In that case, arguably the best solution is an Athens, Greece-style approach. During its renaissance Greece legalized work, as opposed to citizenship. The ambitious flocked there and its economy soared. Ideally U.S. legislators would legalize work once again, while requiring new arrivals to announce themselves. The economy would boom as formerly hamstrung workers would get to maximize their productive potential, and then a much smaller border patrol would chase those  (perhaps terrorists) who choose not to announce themselves. As for conservatism, this solution would free it from a stance that is so contradictory to conservatism.

NEXT: Huckabee Is Out of the Race; Huckabeeism Is Alive and Well

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. Tamny actually has some understanding of the economy.

    If you think immigration increases unemployment or embiggens the welfare state you’re ignorant and need to shut up.

    1. You really are comic fucking gold. You forgot to link to that single CATO study that you worship like the Torah.

      1. Multiple CATO studies. You forgot to ever present a case why they are wrong in any way. PWND

        1. Multiple studies, none of which mean what you think they do. It finally dawned on me who you are. You are Otto from a Fish Called Wanda. Instead of reading Nietzsche, you read Ayn Rand.

          1. “none of which mean what you think they do.”

            Yes they do. If you can find my error of interpretation please do so.

            “You are Otto from a Fish Called Wanda.”

            HA HA HA epic projection right there. Don’t worry John, unlike the Mexicans I’m not going to take your job.

            1. I have tried my best to talk some sense into you. And you are hopeless. You really are Otto; someone who knows just enough to be dangerous about any subject.

              1. I have tried my best to talk some sense into you.

                If straw men and personal attacks are “sense,” then yeah you talk a lot of it. And then you can’t figure out why people compare you to Tony.

            2. “YOU’RE the vulgarian, you FUCK!”

          2. I think the studies that show adding millions of new workers to an economy that can’t employ the ones it has, now, will magically result in the creation of enough jobs to keep all employed, are similar to the ones Nancy Pelosi relied on with her statement that taking money out of the pockets of the productive and giving it to the non-productive, with bureaucrats taking their share, will boost the economy on a scale of magnitude greater than the eventual handouts.
            Magical thinking is a hard concept for some to shake.

    2. If you think immigration increases unemployment or embiggens the welfare state you’re ignorant and need to shut up.

      Labor force participation is way down. Most jobs created since 2009 go to immigrants. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

      Immigrant families more likely to be on welfare than citizens.

      I could dig up the links, again, but you disregarded them several times already, so what’s the point?

      1. There isn’t. He is just retarded. He really is unteachable.

      2. Labor force participation is way down. Most jobs created since 2009 go to immigrants. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

        That’s not a problem of immigration, that’s a problem of overfed, lazy, over welfare’d Americans.

        1. Which shows the interaction between welfare states and open borders. Can’t have both.

          I understand that it’s consistently libertarian to want to end both welfare state and the border, but it matters which order this happens.

          1. “Which shows the interaction between welfare states and open borders. Can’t have both.”

            That’s an fair comparison. You can’t welfare states and anything good.

            Why not just cut the welfare ?

            I’m sure not willing to wait around for welfare to get cut before we can do anything that might put more people on welfare. Are you ready to support telling companies they can’t lay employees off because that would mean more people on welfare?

            1. That’s an [unfair] comparison.

            2. That’s an fair comparison. You can’t welfare states and anything good.

              Engrish Motherfucker, do you speak it?!

      3. Even if Cytotoxic was right, it still smacks of Utilitarianism.

      4. Mark Krikorian has written much on this. Most hispanic immigrants are not a net economic plus. Most get SNAP, many also Medicaid and cash benefits. And this is without taking into account the cost of schooling.

        The new wave of uneducated and unskilled Muslim migrants will be like nothing the country’s experienced before, as they and their left wing friends try to foist the idea on us that we ought to be tolerant of the intolerant. Folks that want to come here and use force against us are not relying on a natural law argument, they are relying on a multicultural PC argument. We are already having huge problems with Somali refugees failing to adapt to the culture of the US.

    3. “Anyone who disagrees with me needs to shut up.”

      No.

    4. Even if you think that labor is a good like any other (rather than something comes packaged with ideas, behaviors, and other impacts), you’re still looking at the situation the wrong way.

      The number of jobs (ie, demand for a certain class of labor) is not fixed, but nor is it infinitely elastic, especially in a narrow window of time. If you have a massive unused supply of some good that you are contracted to purchase at a fixed price (that is, society still pays for underutilized native labor units, cuz welfare), it’s beyond asinine to import more. It doesn’t matter whether you can get it on the cheap. If there is some problem preventing you from using the goods you have, it’s probably worthwhile to focus your efforts on fixing it, to live up to that reputation for ruthless efficiency that capitalism has earned.

    5. “If you think immigration increases unemployment ”

      It’s funny to see motivated reasoning in action.

      Some of the same people who rightly consider insane the progressive denial that the minimum wage doesn’t reduce employment, because laws of supply and demand just don’t hold in that case, nevertheless will turn around and claim that Americans never lose jobs to imported foreign labor, because the laws of economics just don’t hold in that case.

      Because, you know, they’ve got a study that *proves* that the laws of economics don’t hold when importing human widgets.. Like the progressives will trot out a study that *proves* that the laws of economics don’t hold when increasing the minimum wage.

      The quality of reasoning here at Reason has really taken a turn for the worse since they’ve turned to the Proggy Side. Simply correlation? I think causation, but in which direction? Probably the feedback mechanism works causally in both directions. Get more Proggy, get more dishonest and irrational. Get more dishonest and irrational, get more Proggy.

    6. “If you think immigration increases unemployment or embiggens the welfare state disagree with me you’re ignorant and need to shut up.”

      I note the further turn toward the Proggy Side – “my intellectual opponents need to shut up”.

    7. “If you think immigration increases unemployment or embiggens the welfare state you’re ignorant and need to shut up.”

      They don’t cause unemployment, they become part of it, since a lot of them are unemployed.

      Yes, they almost certainly contribute to the welfare state. True here, true in Europe.

    8. Get over 13kM0NTH@ag30:-Let’s start work by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financialy rewarding I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earnin $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k lass month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr … I work –

      Going

      Here you Can
      ,
      Find Out,,

      http://WorkOnlineTechs.com/profitable/2015

    1. Muslim so-called “refugee” tried to get on an Italian bus for free, giving various sob stories to the driver.

      When the Sicilian driver didn’t want to hear it and told him to go buy a ticket, the young Muslim erupted, yelling an expletive and punching the driver in the face.

      It took no time at all for him to regret it.

    2. Meh.

      Calabrese are tougher.

      /wink.

  2. The economy would boom as formerly hamstrung workers would get to maximize their productive potential, and then a much smaller border patrol would chase those (perhaps terrorists) who choose not to announce themselves.

    Who is to say they are not maximizing it now? They are here and working aren’t they? What different would they be doing if they were legalized other than having the ability to collect welfare?

    Further, where is the proof that immigration causes growth rather than the other way around? The fact is that living on the street or even being in prison in the US is a better life than what hundreds of millions of people in the rest of the world have. Reason operates under the assumption that no one would come unless they had some economic opportunity. And that is just not true. Since we have a huge welfare state and if nothing else a stable and reasonably safe country, that alone would make coming here attractive for people with few or no economic prospects. So much for “maximizing their potential”.

    Lastly, it is a good bit of concern trolling for a magazine that loathes conservatives to claim to be the arbiter of what the term actually means.

    1. “What different would they be doing if they were legalized other than having the ability to collect welfare?”

      You really don’t understand the productivity difference between formal and informal sector. Christ you’re stupid.

      “Further, where is the proof that immigration causes growth rather than the other way around? ”

      Singapore, America in the 19th ce.

      “Since we have a huge welfare state and if nothing else a stable and reasonably safe country, that alone would make coming here attractive for people with few or no economic prospects. ”

      And yet there is no correlation between immigration and welfarism.

      1. You really don’t understand the productivity difference between formal and informal sector. Christ you’re stupid.

        Often the informal, because it is not regulated, is more productive. And further even if it is not that doesn’t mean that you can’t reach your maximum productivity in the informal sector. Do you think the illegals who are currently mowing lawns or cutting meat are going to mow more lawns if they were suddenly legal?

        I so wish you had not tried to understand economics. Can’t you go back to raping philosophy or something?

        And Singapore grew because of immigration not because of British Rule and the accompanying stability and rule of law.

        Remember, Chimps do read economics, they just don’t understand it.

      2. “Further, where is the proof that immigration causes growth rather than the other way around? ”

        Singapore, America in the 19th ce.

        … when the proliferation of minimum wages, income taxes, social entitlements, labor regulations, environmental regulations, professional licensing, other barriers to entrepreneurship, and etcetera were nigh on non-existent.

      3. Perhaps in the ‘States. Europe? I don’t think so much.

      4. Singapore, America in the 19th ce

        Singapore just happens to be the second largest port in the world (container port that is). It sits at the mouth of rather narrow straits filled with ships moving between the Pacific and Indian oceans. That just might have something to do with its economic success, too. Take a look at a map of the area.

    2. Re: John,

      Further, where is the proof that immigration causes growth rather than the other way around?

      Normally I respect your views but you’re in my turf right now, which is economics; so let me give you some advice: PLEASE STOP SHOWCASING YOUR IGNORANCE.

      Economic theory will say that everything else being equal, an increase in labor will lead to an increase in production. This means that there IS and HAS TO BE economic growth thanks to the influx of laborers, John. Economic theory is based on deductive reasoning which does not require empirical proof to validate, but if you want proof, look at the period of growth during the 19th and early 20th Century in this country. If immigrants were really a drain to the economy, the United States would have to be a poorer country TODAY because all capital would have to be consumed during a century and a half of open immigration in order for your reasoning to work, instead of capital formation. The historical evidence shows otherwise.

      1. In the aggregate sure. Will your economy get larger with a larger population? Sure. But size is a really crude and stupid measure of an economy. What matters is per capita growth and standard of living. And if the influx of immigrants is not driven by an economic demand for them, you are not going to see any per capita growth and things are going to get generally worse for the people living there.

        1. Or as Neal Stephenson said, a free world market will provide everyone on Earth with a comfortable standard of living for a bricklayer from Karachi.

          1. Re: Brett L,

            Or as Neal Stephenson said, a free world market will provide everyone on Earth with a comfortable standard of living for a bricklayer from Karachi.

            Have you asked yourself how much wealthier would the world have to be so a bricklayer in Karachi enjoys the standard of living that you or I have today? Neal Stephenson may wanted to be cure but he sure showcased his ignorance otherwise. The “Race to the Bottom” canard is just that – a canard.

            1. You’ve got the question backwards: how much poorer does the average person have to get in the US for capital and labor to stop flowing out in a free market? The world economy might be richer for it, but there will be winners and losers. Since no one seems to be advocating for capital to move to where the labor is, there might be more than supply and demand in effect.

        2. Re: John.

          In the aggregate sure.

          Are you really going to ask “What’s in it for me?”

          Will your economy get larger with a larger population? Sure. But size is a really crude and stupid measure of an economy.

          Ok, now you want to change the rules of the game. I’m not talking measuring an economy by its size, because that is arbitrary. I’m talking about economic theory and economic law. The more laborers you have, the higher the production. As more laborers are available to the owners of capital, they can then take advantage of Division of Labor, which makes every single laborer MORE productive.

          The other aspect you seem to ignore (for some reason) is Comparative Advantage. All other things being equal, a person is going to be more productive in one aspect but not another compared to a person of different skills. I am sure Lebron James must be very productive at flipping burgers but that would mean a waste of his productive capabilities compared to someone who does not play basketball. That’s Comparative Advantage.

          1. Just as basic laws of economics do not apply to the minimum wage because, um, because progressives like Tony say so, the basic laws of economics do not apply to immigration because, um, because conservatards like John say so.
            Q.E.D.

          2. The more laborers you have, the higher the production. As more laborers are available to the owners of capital, they can then take advantage of Division of Labor, which makes every single laborer MORE productive.

            What has this got to do with where a person resides?

            1. Re: CampingInYourPark,

              What has this [Division of Labor] got to do with where a person resides?

              Quite a lot, actually. The closest labor is to the point of production, the less costly it is. You can probably get by with labor that can work from a distance but, ultimately, labor is more productive when it is closest to the point of production.

              Labor, like capital, moves where it is the most productive. Just like goods move towards the places where the profits are higher. And the more Labor at your disposal, the greater the increase in Division of Labor.

              If you were asking about Comparative Advantage, the concept was originally used to explain the advantages of free trade, but Labor benefits from free trade as well, as the lower-skilled labor RELEASES the more skilled labor for much more suitable [profitable] endeavors.

              1. So, if we crammed all the people in the US into the state of Delaware we could be uber-rich?

                1. Re: CampingInYourPark,

                  So, if we crammed all the people in the US into the state of Delaware we could be uber-rich?

                  As long as everybody got rid of the Vermonter government, sure. If we packed everybody in Vermont, the population density would still be comparable to Singapore’s and we could be even richer than that city-state.

                  But, seriously, for this movement of labor benefit to occur, it would have to be accompanied by an actual demand for labor, right?

                  Like with everything else, C. If the demand for labor drops, there’s not going to be as much immigration as if the demand for labor was higher. That’s basic economics. The fact that the immigration rate in the US has dropped thanks to the lousy recovery shows this i the case.

                  Let me be clear about one thing: The fact is an open borders policy would not mean there’s going to be an invasion from everywhere. That cannot be the case at all. Only paranoid xenophobes want to believe so. Labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand just like with every other scarce good. People who migrate to the US would just as well migrate OUT when opportunities become much more profitable in other places.

              2. But, seriously, for this movement of labor benefit to occur, it would have to be accompanied by an actual demand for labor, right? And we know this is the case…because?

              3. You can probably get by with labor that can work from a distance

                All the components in my PC agree this can somehow work

          3. Productivity is a product of labor and capital not just labor. And wealth is a measure of productivity in relation to your population. So just adding more labor does not make you wealthy and in fact can make you poorer.

      2. Economic theory will say that everything else being equal, an increase in labor will lead to an increase in production

        “Everything else being equal” in something as complicated as the US economy/welfare state, is like “assume a spherical chicken” in aeronautical engineering.

      3. Economic theory is based on deductive reasoning which does not require empirical proof to validate

        In other words, it’s a pseudo-science that deserves only slightly less consideration than astrology.

        1. Deductive reasoning is how we discover mathematics and formal logic. You can challenge the postulates (assumptions) a deduction depends on, but it’s wrong to say deductive reasoning ? astrology. You’d be more correct to say it is a precursor to science than a pseudo-science.

          1. So, the notion that adding low skilled refugees to an already weak job market improves the economy is a precursor to science?

            It’s not even deductive reasoning. It’s wishful thinking.

      4. everything else being equal

        The employment and education systems in Mexico are the equal to those the US? Of course not.

        So everything else ISN’T equal.

    3. Well stated John

  3. “Donald Trump’s Anti-Immigration Views Aren’t Conservative”

    Isn’t the definition of conservative ‘wanting to keep things as they are?’ If you fear immigrants will change your country, then it’s definitely conservative to oppose that.

    Even a ‘keep America white!’ bigoted conservative is conservative because he supports conserving a certain thing he likes. I’d argue most progressives are also conservatives given their love of 1930’s economic policies and the fact that they pine for 1950’s unionization rates.

    1. The opinions of known racists don’t count here, Irish.

      We drove Slappy off, and we’ll get rid of you, too.

      1. So when are you leaving, Jimbo?

        1. It was a joke. I’m completely on board with Irish’s hatred of black people.

          1. And don’t get me started on those fucking micks, eh? No Irish Need Apply

    2. Strictly speaking, you are exactly right. The difference between “conservatives” and Libertarians is that libertarians make no account of culture or anything other than a single minded pursuit of economic freedom. It is not that conservatives object to all immigration. It is that they consider the issue debatable and that immigration can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. There is nothing “conservative” about a single minded obsession with open borders. That may be the strict libertarian position but it is not the conservative position.

      1. “libertarians make no account of culture or anything other than a single minded pursuit of economic freedom.”

        Actually, it’s freedom in general. And libertarians make ‘account’ of those things it just isn’t part of their philosophy.

        You have about as good an idea what libertarians believe in as Tony. Please leave.

        1. Whatever Otto.

          1. Good one, John! Give him another burn like that! Yeah!

        2. You have about as good an idea what libertarians believe in as Tony.

          You don’t get it. He’s the smartest person in the room. He’s here to tell libertarians what they really believe. Same with atheists. He knows because he’s so smart, and the people who say that they believe something different are just too stupid to understand what they really believe. We should bow to his towering intellect and nod our heads in agreement. He knows.

          1. You don’t get it. He’s the smartest person in the room.

            If the only people in the room are you and Cytoxic, well yeah but I am not sure that means very much.

            1. The fact that no one agrees with you only proves how superior you are. Please, John. Keep educating us on what we really believe. We are so stupid that we don’t even know. We would all be lost without your conservative guidance.

              1. We are so stupid that we don’t even know.

                Well, considering the open-bordertards here haven’t actually lived in a majority Hispanic neighborhood in this country, then yes, your position is based on ignorance. If you actually had to live in a barrio for more than a year, you’d come out of more racist than a Klansman. Those cholos hate your ass precisely because you aren’t like them in any way whatsoever.

                You think that “diversity” means having a bunch of non-American restaurants to eat at that you visit from your white neighborhoods. You don’t really have a damn clue how immigration from socialist-loving, economically and culturally dysfunctional countries doesn’t just turn to capitalist, free market support the minute they cross the Rio Grande.

                You really think it’s a coincidence that the Progressive laws of the early 20th century were enacted following the mass immigration of the late 19th and early 20th century, from countries that were influenced by Rousseian and Marxist philosophy?

        3. Please leave.

          So the expert on “liberty” likes telling everyone to “shut up” and “leave”. You might think that these were the actions of an intellectual ant. You would be correct.

      2. The difference between “conservatives” and Libertarians is that libertarians make no account of culture or anything other than a single minded pursuit of economic freedom.

        John’s bout with the strawman may be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

        1. Why is it a “strawman”? How do you account for culture, if the answer to every question is “do whatever you want”?

          1. How do you account for culture, if the answer to every question is “do whatever you want”?

            In what way is “do whatever you want” not a cultural prescription?

            1. Sure. I didn’t say you didn’t have a culture. I said you can’t account for culture, meaning for other people not having the same one as you.

              Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

              1. Why don’t you just admit you don’t like brown people and move on with your life?

          2. What do you even mean by ‘account for culture’? Because I originally thought you meant libertarians don’t take cultural freedom seriously as opposed to economic freedom, which is patently false.

            1. What I mean Hugh is that you assume that people will magically drop their indigenous culture and adopt your freedom valuing culture when they come here. You cannot account for the possibility that they won’t and that open borders can cause you to lose your freedom as people who don’t value freedom move in and change the culture for the worse.

              1. What I mean Hugh is that you assume that people will magically drop their indigenous culture and adopt your freedom valuing culture when they come here.

                You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true.

              2. Ah, so there’s the strawman. If we can’t even get people who were born and indoctrinated in America to adopt a culture of freedom, why would we assume that people who moved here from authoritarian kleptocratic shitholes would magically do so? I mean, you can’t possibly think that libertarians are that dumb after trolling here for so many years, so I have to assume you’re just trying to make yourself look smart by debating a cartoon.

                of course people bring their culture with them when they migrate, especially when they move to ethnic enclaves. Sometimes that brings bad things like gang violence and benighted attitudes toward women and religion (both of which are already in ready supply in the good ol’ U.S. of A, thankyou). But more often it brings great things like food, music, art, and different perspectives on the world, all of which get mixed, mashed, reinterpreted, and sampled in ways that vastly improve the lives of both immigrants and natives.

                But whether or not you like the particular ways they express themselves, nobody comes here with the intention of imposing their culture on anybody.

                1. I mean, you can’t possibly think that libertarians are that dumb after trolling here for so many years,

                  Yeah he could.

                  so I have to assume you’re just trying to make yourself look smart by debating a cartoon.

                  It could be both.

                2. But whether or not you like the particular ways they express themselves, nobody comes here with the intention of imposing their culture on anybody.

                  Go ask the Europeans about that. Why in the world do you think they would not? Moreover, if enough of them come with that culture, they don’t have to impose it on anyone. They become the dominant culture.

                  Further, instead of screaming strawman, why don’t you stop engaging in it yourself. The point isn’t that our culture will one day magnetically disappear. That is not how this works. What happens is the two cultures influence one another. Do we pull them towards freedom? Sure. But they pull us towards them. The more people you let in who don’t value freedom, the less your society as a whole will value freedom.

                  You would freely admit this at the local level. You seem to understand that when a bunch of people from California or New Jersey move to a place like Colorado or Texas, the place gets less free and more like California and New Jersey. Yet, you can’t seem to see it at the national level.

                  And no one is trolling here. If your delicate sensibilities can’t take a reasoned debate, don’t debate and shut up about it. Whatever you do, don’t try to engage in a debate and then accuse anyone who disagrees with you of trolling.

                3. you can’t possibly think that libertarians are that dumb

                  Some here are without doubt. Picking the right political philosophy doesn’t make one smart. Sorry. Being a snark doesn’t either but don’t let me get in the way of you patting yourself on the back for your “superiority”.

        2. He has a point. The arguments open-borders libertarians make on this issue generally center around economic growth or humanitarian appeal — most open-borders libertarians are loath to engage the arguments of anarchists like Hans Herman-Hoppe RE: open borders, and have a very poorly-developed argument on the classically liberal basis for a general right to free access to the various easements and political grants of travel in other countries.

          1. Very basic stance: If you aren’t hurting anyone then why do other people give a damn.

            Apply NAP to immigration and open borders, and you have a non-economic and libertarian argument for immigration.

            1. No. You have a strong argument for kicking out criminals and anyone who comes here to impose their culture on us. Last I looked Reason was all about getting some of what is going on in Europe right now.

              1. “anyone who comes here to impose their culture on us”

                So can we kick out all the evangelicals who knock on my door at fucking 8am?

                1. How about kicking out all the people who are trying to impose a culture of not imposing foreign cultures on us?

                2. John raises a serious point. Every day, I have Mexicans pounding at my door demanding I wear a sombrero, go to confession, blow Death Whistles, and eat frijoles.

                  OK, so I do eat frijoles, sue me, pendejo.

                  1. Don’t you think your comparison is a bit disingenuous?

                    Mexico, and most if not all countries north of the equator, was not only founded on western values (judeo christian) but their initial governments were founded by classical liberals. There is little difference between a Mexican worldview and one from North America. But John was referring to MENA refugees changing the culture.

                    Muslims are convinced that western values are evil and beneath them. They treat their own women horribly but they see western women as little better than pets. This sets up a significant cultural clash that’s unwinding in Europe today. MENA refugees are not anywhere near comparable to Central and South American immigrants. It’s a false comparison.

                    1. Yep, those hundreds of thousands of Muslim citizens, including those currently in the armed forces, absolutely hate America and treat western women like shit.

                      How’d it feel when Trump lost Iowa?

            2. Very basic stance: If you aren’t hurting anyone then why do other people give a damn.

              Apply NAP to property rights, and you have a non-economic and libertarian argument for socialism

              ^Again, quite a bit of it comes down to not understanding that libertarianism is constructed around a very specific definition of not “hurting anyone” which involves property claims, and how that interacts with community property/public goods wrt foreigners.

      3. It is completely disingenuous. There is more to life than money, and conservatives of all people are far less likely to be won over by suggesting that we be mercenary on the question of preserving heritage and the common consensus on liberty among the body politic.

      4. “The difference between “conservatives” and Libertarians is that libertarians …”

        The relevant difference is that Cosmotarians are anarchists who like to pretend that government doesn’t exist, and don’t want Proggies to call them racists, so they’re for OPEN BORDERZ WOOHOO, while libertarians see a role for government in securing the rights of its citizens, and wants government to fulfill that role.

    3. Yeah, the problem with this article is that it equates conservatism with support for “private property rights, small government, free trade and markets, openness to technology, disdain for central economic control, along with dislike of affirmative action.”

      I mean, I think the last one is still true. But there are people calling themselves conservative who actively fight against every other item on that list. I don’t think ‘conservative’ means what Tammy thinks it means.

      1. It means what he wants it to mean and happens to also supports his assertions. Reason is getting tedious.

    4. Re: Irish ?s ESB,

      Isn’t the definition of conservative ‘wanting to keep things as they are?’

      That would be in the general or colloquial sense. In the political sense, Conservatism is defined as the political philosophy that prefers smaller government and the least amount of government activism over greater government and higher government activism. It does not mean the conservatives want to keep a country in stasis. That would be the Communists.

      1. “Conservatism is defined as the political philosophy that prefers smaller government and the least amount of government activism over greater government and higher government activism.”

        If that were true conservatives would just be libertarians and they clearly aren’t.

        1. Re: Irish

          If that were true conservatives would just be libertarians and they clearly aren’t.

          That’s because those you’re thinking about aren’t conservatives ? those are Fascists.

        2. From Russell Kirk:
          1. Belief in a transcendent order or body of natural law that rules society as well as conscience. There is objective truth in the universe, and we can know it. It is the great object of politics to apprehend and apply true Justice to a “community of souls.”
          2. There are such things as truth and right, falsehood and wrong. Without an unchanging standard, attempts at social living are doomed beforehand for failing to acknowledge that men are spiritual beings, not infinitely malleable.
          3. Affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrow uniformity and egalitarianism of “radical” systems.
          4. There are natural distinctions among men, leading to inequalities of condition. Conservatives affirm equality before God and the courts; anything more leads to “servitude and boredom.”
          5. Freedom and property are linked: without private property, the state is unstoppable. Redistribution of wealth, by taxes or other means, is not economic progress.
          6. Faith in prescription and distrust of those calculating men who would reconstruct all of society according to their own abstract designs. A conservative believes things are the way they are for a good reason. Customs serve as a check on anarchy and the lust for power.
          7. Recognition that change may not be a good thing. Hasty innovation can destroy as well as improve, so conservatives are prudent with their changes and approach reform with caution rather than zeal.

      2. W.F. Buckley, the founder of National Review wrote in the essay inaugurating his magazine, “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

        Sounds rather like Irish’s point about keeping things as they are, so far as NR (a subject of the article) goes.

  4. National Review is not against immigration.

    No matter how many times you attempt this, it will still not be true.

    Immigration and Illegal immigration are not the same thing.

    Please stop doing this. It’s a leftist tactic and it does nothing more than highlight how far Gramsci has marched through libertarianism.

    1. “Immigration and Illegal immigration are not the same thing.”

      Yes they are. The difference is arbitrary government fiat.

      1. The difference is arbitrary government fiat.

        Are you saying arbitrary government fiats aren’t real, that there is difference between legal and illegal activity?

        The only difference between murder and self-defense is one of those arbitrary fiats, you know. Both ways, somebody’s dead, right?

        1. There is a big difference between the use of deadly force and the movement of people across imaginary lines drawn on a map.

          1. It makes one wonder why their are imaginary lines on maps to begin with.

            1. So government goons can use deadly force. I can’t really think of any other reason.

              1. Well, lots of imaginary lines were originally geographic features that impeded movement. Behind these features distinct societies were able to develop – some good, some bad. These features also provided protection against other societies that sought to do harm to their neighbors.

                1. Maybe we should trade in our imaginary lines with pissing on landmarks like other animals

                  1. That works for me but only if we make it a workfare program.

          2. There is a big difference between the use of deadly force and the movement of people across imaginary lines drawn on a map.

            Of course there is. I’m just trying to figure out if the difference between legal and illegal is meaningless or not.

            It makes one wonder why their are imaginary lines on maps to begin with.

            You mean, like property boundaries?

            National boundaries serve much the same purpose, you know: “This is my turf, that is your turf.”

            Because there will be turf, like it or not. Pack and herd animals nearly always define a core area that they will defend. Pretending that we can do without some kind of national boundary is pretty much on par with believing that we can do without property. They both spring from the same root.

            Without clear and recognized boundaries, you get a state of constant violence, possibly at a low level, possibly not, because human nature seems to require that we assert ownership over as much as we can. Boundaries are a way of keeping constant skirmishes to a relative minimum.

      2. That is the only difference on paper. The difference in practice is the same as the difference between a legal drug market and an illegal one.

        Even if you don’t accept the premise of the illegality of certain kinds of immigration, it is still fairly apparent that making something illegal tends to draw in other forms of illegal activity.

    2. Immigration and Illegal immigration are not the same thing.

      It is to Reason Staff, because that’s the hill they want to die on. No amount of reasoning will convince them otherwise.

      1. Undoubtedly, the Reason staff also believes that legal drug use and illegal drug use are the “same thing” in the sense that’s being used here. The legal distinction and the practical distinction may differ substantially, but there is an undeniable feedback effect between the two.

      2. How else are they supposed to get invited to hipster Proggy cocktail parties?

        Proggies will call them *racists* if they oppose OPEN BORDEZ. Oh noes!

    3. I agree – control of borders is part of what defines a nation. Many conservatives look at our southern border and are distressed by a situation that is completely out of control. Regardless of how they feel about people coming from Central or South America to work.

      They also look at Europe’s descent into chaos and civil war and want no part of it.

      1. They also look at Europe’s descent into chaos and civil war and want no part of it.

        Well sure but that won’t happen here.

        1. Well sure but that won’t happen here.

          The people at La Raza assure me that it will not.

          1. “La Raza” is quite hilarious, is it not?

            Open racist nationalism, but as long as it is against Whitey, it’s all good.

      2. link for that European Civil war? Sounds interesting…

        1. You know, the civil war that happened over that German girl who accused those brown guys of rape?
          http://time.com/4202091/germany-migrant-rape/

          1. Ah, so not an actual war per se, how disappointing

            1. Have patience.

    4. ” It’s a leftist tactic …”

      The more Reason turns toward the Proggy Side, the more they adopt the anti intellectual habits of Proggies.

  5. Most conservatives seem to understand that wealth in the economy is not a zero-sum game. There is not a fixed amount of wealth out there to be divvied up. Wealth is created by the efforts and ideas of people, so the progressive hatred of the rich on the basis of them stealing wealth from the poor is based on economic ignorance. Most conservatives seem to understand this.

    But then it totally flips on the subject of immigration and jobs. Suddenly the economy becomes a zero-sum game with a fixed number of jobs, and any job that a furriner takes is a job stolen from a murkin. The notion of more hands and more ideas growing the economy and creating wealth goes out the window. Conservatives become economically ignorant progressives when the subject of immigration comes up.

    1. You noticed that, too?

      Free market competition works except when my job is threatened.

      1. Free market competition works except when my job is threatened minimum wages, labor regulations, environmental regulations, professional licensing, other barriers to entrepreneurship and employment, cronyism, government created monopolies, and etcetera make “free market competition” a myth.

        FIFY

        1. Market forces still generally rule the day in this country, the protestations and promises of politicians notwithstanding.

          1. Market forces still generally rule the day…

            If you really believe that, then I got sumthin’ to sell you!

            Market forces only rule the day insofar as the government allows it. The barriers to entry, alone (all the other rules and regulations notwithstanding), into the automotive, communications (cellular, cable, internet, etc. services), energy, transportation and shipping industries, just to name a few… and opening your own hair braiding boutique, lemonade stand, home bakery, etc.… ensure that market forces only let us choose between the limited choices that government (and cronyists) allows… or the black market…

            1. In some sense, market forces still rule the day in places like Venezuela. The government gets to pass its edicts, and the market responds accordingly (with shortages, etc.). But it is fairly obvious that compared to, say, China, market forces dictate outcomes more than government edicts do.

              1. last sentence should end with “in the US”

                1. last sentence should end with “in the US”

                  Oh! Then ignore the last half of my previous resoponse (@ 1:38PM) :). So…

                  … market forces dictate outcomes more than government edicts do in the US.

                  You are still missing the point. In the US, the market forces dictate outcomes only sofar as Government edicts allow them. Because of the barriers to entry, we have a more limited number of options to choose from. So, market forces only drive results between X, Y, and Z as opposed to the whole damned alphabet.

                  Sure, the US, the market is freeR than in some places, though we are falling on the economic freedom scale. The fact remains: we do not have a “free market” and, I would argue, that our labor market is one of the least free of our “markets”.

                  1. Yeah, I really need to split up two different concepts here.

                    Market forces always exist. The real question is whether they are the driving forces or are just reacting to other forces.

                    The US is not a free market, but it is not a command economy, either. It also varies from sector to sector.

                    1. The US is not a free market, but it is not a command economy…

                      True, but it is, and increasingly so, a permission economy, especially regarding labor. Espousing free market solutions are kind of pointless when the market is not free. Any solutions will, necessarily, be limited by the constraints on the market, whether it is command (you must do) or permission (you may not… w/o the appropriate bribes).

                      Offering or looking for “free market solutions,” for anything, is the wrong approach. Free the market instead, and the solutions will follow.

              2. In some sense, market forces still rule the day in places like Venezuela. The government gets to pass its edicts, and the market responds accordingly (with shortages, etc.)…

                Shortages represent, in the case of central planning (versus, say, natural disaster destroying crops), a failure of the market to meet demand. It is the edicts strangling the market, not the market responding. Otherwise, if market forces actually still ruled the day, in your example, then someone would respond to the shortages by finding a way to increase production to meet the unmet demand.

                But it is fairly obvious that compared to, say, China, market forces dictate outcomes more than government edicts do.

                That is laughable. The market is failing in Venezuela because government is strangling it. The market is growing in China because they have responded to the failures of central planning by rolling back much of their market control. China’s economic growth over the last couple of decades has more to do with China freeing (making it less controlled) the market than it does with market forces ruling in spite of controls.

                1. I think you are in violent agreement with what I am saying, and are just reading something into it that’s not there. Note the correction/clarification I made.

                  1. Noted. Corrected, but the commenting system put it before my previous post rather than after.

            2. Re: See.More,

              Market forces only rule the day insofar as the government allows it.

              You’re mistaken. Market Forces ALWAYS rule, as long as there are people on this Earth. What government does with its interventions is distort the point where markets clear which is what causes scarcity problems and/or black markets, but government itself cannot control the market. Nobody can.

        2. I don’t know if we are discussing the same thing. I refer to the typical conservative’s praise of the free market, except when he thinks that government interference in the market will protect his livelihood.

          Sometimes known as “Crony Capitalism”.

      2. We have lots of poor people that could make a great living in Central Asia, but don’t go there. Why? For that matter, why don’t engineers all move to Central Africa? Because the economy isn’t the whole experience. But until the market is truly free, the least competitve here will get fucked by the most competitive arrivals. That may be a good, or it may not. It may be the best good, or it may not. But quit pretending like the H1B and other guest worker programs plus illegal immigration are the same as the free market. They aren’t. Try being an illegal immigrant dentist and see how long you can practice.

        1. the least competitve here will get fucked by the most competitive arrivals

          Just as wealth in the economy is not a zero-sum game, jobs are not a zero-sum game either.

          1. But they are not a positive feedback cycle, either. The offset between losing your jov today and finding one that is created from the other guy taking yours or someone else’s may take time. If it takes long enough, you might starve in the free market.

    2. It’s certainly possible to believe that something is economically beneficial while being hazardous in other ways.

      1. Well, let me know when a conservatard admits that immigration is economically beneficial. As far as I can tell they’re willfully ignorant progressives with regards to the economic benefits of immigration.

        1. I’ve seen T Sowell do it once or twice. Much as I dislike NR, they’ve published articles to that effect. In general it is acknowledged implicitly by any conservative immigration proposal which does not ban any and all immigration.

          OTOH, it is also possible for *some* immigration to be economically harmful. In general refugees are a bad deal economically, whatever else you think about accepting refugees. Certainly an immigrant whose numerous children grow up to be welfare clients is a drain on the system. But yes, labor markets generally work like most other markets in lieu of government interference.

          1. I never really considered Sowell to be a conservative, but OK.

            1. Do you think he is a liberal? That’s the only other choice.

            2. I never really considered Sowell to be a conservative

              Listen to him talk about something other than economics.

          2. Immigration–legal immigration is always economically beneficial.

            Illegal immigration much less so.

    3. It’s a matter of timing.

      If you flood the market with 50 cent laborers, then wages are going to fall to 50 cents. Your laborers that were previously making $5 now have to acquire the skills for the $10 jobs 50 cent laborers can’t do.

      This takes time. Sometimes a generation.

      People aren’t robots that can be redeployed by the end of the fiscal quarter.

      1. If you flood the market with 50 cent laborers, then you will see economic growth as more goods and services are produced by those laborers.

        1. And the proof that numbers=economic success is evident in India and China! They have the most laborers and so are clearly the richest!

        2. no you wouldn’t since they wouldn’t be able to be employed at 50 cents (minimum wage) but they would need support of some sort (welfare, charity, other non-profits).

      2. If you flood the market with 50 cent laborers you are going to see a lot of people that can open up new firms with all that cheap labor.

        1. Monocle polishing sale!

    4. “Suddenly the economy becomes a zero-sum game with a fixed number of jobs, and any job that a furriner takes is a job stolen from a murkin.”

      No. Not zero sum, but nice straw man.

      An honest analysis would say that opening the labor market to foreign competition would probably increase total employment, but decrease the employment of current citizens of the US, depress their wages, and increase the level at which they use government social welfare programs.

      Add a new source of supply at a lower price point to a market, and price levels for the existing supply should go down, and less of the original supply should purchased.

      If you’re in the market to purchase labor, this is good for you, but if you’re in the market *as* labor, this is bad for you. It’s unclear how this turns out for taxpayers.

      The dishonesty in the analysis is the aggregation of The Economy and Wealth, as opposed to the Wealth of this group, that group, and the other group.

      In economic terms, with the guest worker policies favored by big business, Progressives, and Cosmotarians, American employers and foreign laborers win, while American laborers lose, while Conservatives are instead supporting American laborers over American employers and foreign laborers.

    5. Suddenly the economy becomes a zero-sum game with a fixed number of jobs, and any job that a furriner takes is a job stolen from a murkin.

      That’s a strawman. Yes, jobs can be created with more wealth. But it’s a process of growth that happens over time.

      If the number of unemployed workers already outstrips the number of jobs for those workers, then the additional labor serves no purpose until demand (ie jobs) catches up. It’s trivial to understand if you think about any other resource. If I have a factory with 100 lines, and 20 are currently shut down due to lack of demand, then it makes no sense to add 10 more lines unless you have reason to think demand will pick up in the near future.

  6. Also, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you don’t have to hate immigrants to understand that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

    You can have your immigrants or you can have a concept of limited gov’t, but you can’t have both. Even though most of them are fleeing socialist hellholes, and logic should dictate that they’d know better, we all know that isn’t how human nature works. It’s like people who leave CA or MA due to the cost of living, then proceed to vote for that exact thing in the places they move to.

    More immigrants = more socialism. Not to mention the basic fact that people, acting collectively, have a right to determine the use of the border of their nation-state (unless you’re an anarchist, but then your ideas are so axiomatically unworkable and stupid that you really don’t have a place in this particular debate).

    1. A+ I can’t believe it’s not butter conservaderp.

    2. There’s no reason to believe that America would pull down the welfare/warfare state if all the immigrants left.

      1. Agreed. But there’d be a hell of a lot fewer democratic voters, and that’s a good first step.

        1. Non-citizens can’t vote and citizens can’t be deported. So then your conclusion has to be based upon some measure of electoral fraud occurring, with immigrants playing some part of it (either as agents or instruments).

          Removing them may make the fraud more difficult to perpetuate, but it doesn’t eliminate it.

          1. Not talking about fraud. I’m saying that when immigrants become citizens, they don’t magically switch to a 50/50 rep/dem split. They stay dem. So the more you import, the more likely they are to eventually become citizens (either through the legal process now, or more likely, through a mass amnesty), and the more democrats you have.

            1. If immigrants didn’t vote Democrat, the Democrats would not be pro open borders. And if the day ever comes that Hispanics decide to start voting Republican, the Democrats will nominate Donald Trump.

              1. This.

                Democrats have fundamentally decided to replace their dependence on “Reagan Democrats” by importing a more reliable voters for big government, both by ideology and dependence on government.

                Republicans and Reagan Democrats are starting to catch on. There could be a major realignment.

            2. Is the group of immigrants who are eligible to become citizens, and who do become citizens, represent the group of all immigrants?

              Even if it does, or still tilts the same way, deporting those individuals would require the sort of change to the law that could also prevent “amnesty” or just make it so they can’t become citizens and thus can’t vote.

              1. Does the group represent/is the group representative

                no edit button…

              2. Anecdotally, it seems that people who depend on government services tend to vote for more government and government services. Hence large cities tend to vote for Team Blue which gives them city services and economic support.

            3. Maybe if the Republicans didn’t treat them like shit, more immigrants might be willing to consider voting for them.

              1. Maybe if the Republicans didn’t treat them like shit, more immigrants might be willing to consider voting for them.

                1. In general, Republicans don’t “treat immigrants like shit”; hell, a large portion of the Republican voting base employs them and wants to keep doing so
                2. “might be willing to consider” isn’t exactly going to move mountains, either; immigrants might just prefer Democrats for reasons other than “the Republicans are mean to us”

                1. Talk to immigrants about it. They see Rs as openly hostile to them.

                  1. Talk to immigrants about it. They see Rs as openly hostile to them.

                    Can’t imagine why, seeing how shitty their neighborhoods and schools are, despite getting billions in various government assistance programs over the decades and relentless pandering to their ethnic chauvinism in the media and academia.

                    Check out all the hysterics over gentrification in North Denver if you want to see true ignorance in action. Hispanics are more than happy to live in run-down neighborhoods with shitty schools as long as the neighborhood remains dominated by Hispanics. The minute white people with money start moving in and–surprise, surprise–begin changing the cultural presumptions of the neighborhood, which includes demanding and holding authorities accountable for safe streets, basic infrastructure, low crime, and schools where the kids can actually read at their grade level by the time they graduate, the sky is falling.

                2. ” immigrants might just prefer Democrats for reasons other than “the Republicans are mean to us””

                  No, no. The Proggy way is to assume The Other is completely empty of his own motivations and agency, and only responds reflexively to the grievances Proggies project onto them.

        2. As opposed to the republican voters, who support a massive warfare/police state, welfare for the middle class and wealthy instead of the poor, and imposing their culture through the government?

          1. welfare for the middle class and wealthy instead of the poor

            How is it “welfare” when you’re the one paying for it? The top 20% pays over 80% of the taxes but only consumes about 20% in government services.

          2. Not saying they’re libertarian, but let’s take a look at the biggest problems we’ve got that are actually bankrupting the country: entitlements.

            New Deal? Dems.
            Great Society? Dems.

            That right there is the difference.

            The Keys to Victory are:

            1) Never vote dem again
            2) Primary the shit out of every RHINO, every election
            3) …
            4) Profit!

            It’s like ProL always says (said? I haven’t seen him around in a bit) the democrats didn’t get socialism overnight. We need Fabian libertarianism. So vote republican in the general, and vote the most libertarian republican you can in the primary.

            And if that still doesn’t work, then we’re too fucked too fix it anymore anyway.

            1. There are no keys to victory. It took seventy or more years to get us into this mess. We are not getting out of it if only we elect the right people, whoever they are, for a couple of elections. If it is to be reversed, it will have to be reversed one slow step at a time.

              1. Ha, right. No – it will be reversed in one fell swoop and the economic calamity will cause people to vote away all remaining shreds of freedom for the empty promises of ‘order’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘security’.

    3. What Reason doesn’t understand is that there is more to being free than the government not stomping on you. If your society doesn’t value freedom, you are not going to be free I don’t care how wonderful of a constitution you have. This country is more free than most of the world because the people who live here want it that way and the people who live other places largely don’t. If you bring in enough people who don’t want it to be free anymore, it will stop being so free.

      1. This. Libertarians take a pass on the importance of culture.

        1. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. The same people who consider gay rights to be a hugely important issue are all about allowing huge numbers of Muslim refugees into the country. And anyone who points out that those two things might be incomparable is immediately called a racist.

          1. They (and their proggie friends on this issue) really believe that people will change when immersed in a freedom loving and tolerant society. It’s dangerously naive.

      2. Re: John,

        What Reason doesn’t understand is that there is more to being free than the government not stomping on you.

        We’re all born free, John. What the government does is called acting in a criminal manner. The issue is not that people don’t realize they’re free but the fact they justify the actions taken by government by thinking they’re validated by majority vote. That is the misconception we’re all trying to dispel, not that we want to be more free.

        I already *know* I’m free.

        1. You are sadly mistaken Mexican. You see the government as the main threat to your freedom because you are lucky enough to live in a society that is largely tolerant and free. If you didn’t, the government would be the least of your problems. If you lived in a place like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, you would not be free even if the government ceased to exist. It doesn’t matter if there are laws saying you can’t do things if doing those things results in the society around you exiling or killing you. You are just as unfree in either case.

          1. Maybe he’s referring to The Matrix?

          2. Re: John,

            You see the government as the main threat to your freedom because you are lucky enough to live in a society that is largely tolerant and free.

            What I have is a mind, John. Whatever people choose to do, even if they choose to commit acts of aggression against me, changes naught the fact that I am a free individual.

            You seem not to understand the point. I am free because I am aware, not because others let me. If I am not god, neither is everybody else.

            1. What I have is a mind, John. Whatever people choose to do, even if they choose to commit acts of aggression against me, changes naught the fact that I am a free individual.

              If freedom is entirely a state of mind, sure. But if that is the case, then the government isn’t a threat to your freedom either. Meanwhile, by that logic, Warty could kidnap you and lock you in his basement and you would still be “free”. You can define the term however you like but if that is your definition, it doesn’t mean very much.

              1. Re: John,

                If freedom is entirely a state of mind, sure. But if that is the case, then the government isn’t a threat to your freedom either.

                Understood, but you’re confusing concepts. Government is a threat to our rights as individuals. But you and I know we’re free. Whatever the government or “society” does, it changes not the fact you and I are free individuals. They can’t control our minds. They can’t will themselves to our bodies. They can only use threats and violence. That’s it.

                We understand perfectly that we are beings of will. Even people in Afghanistan understand they’re beings of will; the difference between them and you or I is that they prefer their universe totally explained. They’re free to believe that. When they commit acts of aggression against others, however, it does not mean ipso facto there’s no freedom, only that people are culturally inclined to becoming criminals. That’s all.

                1. Sure Mexican. But the fact remains, if you lived there or in a society like that, you would no longer be free to do a whole lot of things in peace.

        2. No, you’re born into a family and a culture that impresses its values upon you.

      3. John, I think the government not stomping on you pretty much is the core libertarian definition of freedom.

        However, you can’t have a government that doesn’t stomp on you unless the culture supports it (this is sometimes called deep libertarianism, and is not universally accepted). That’s what’s changed in the last 70 years or so. And until that changes back, we aren’t getting a smaller government.

        1. I think the government not stomping on you pretty much is the core libertarian definition of freedom.

          Yes and that is why it is a limited ideology that is defenseless when confronted by a culture that doesn’t value freedom. Communists think people can be perfected by the government. Libertarians think they can be perfected by being left alone. Libertarians think that if only we get the government out of the way people will spontaneously respect each other’s freedom. Sadly, that is not the case.

    4. When you import people, you import their politics.

  7. National Review, a great magazine…

    My ears started to ring at about that point. tl;dr.

    1. It’s funnier than Mad, but not quite as funny as Cracked

    2. Once Bill Buckley rises from the dead and drives off the current esitorial staff, it might be great again. Once they drove off Derbyshire, I wanted no part of their big government “conservatism”.

  8. NR is anti-immigration? I know a few of the writers are, but if you look at people who have been expelled from NR over the years it’s a who’s who of anti-immigration writers. The impression I’ve had from NR is that immigration is great and wonderful and hispanics are natural conservatives which is great and wonderful.

    1. Hispanics are natural conservatives…

      Clearly.

    2. Not a terrible working theory – that Catholic immigrants will assimilate within a generation and eventually vote on issues more important than who rolled out the welcome wagon when they showed up.

    3. NR is anti-immigration?

      NR has Mark Krikorian, who advocates for sharply curtailed levels of immigration. Incidentally, he’s one of the few public persons who knows the subject. Pretty much anyone else reveals their complete lack of knowledge of how the immigration system works when they discuss the issue.

    4. Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t seem to agree about Mexicans.

      1. Well he obviously is no true conservative!

  9. Ugh. What a yuuuuge misunderstanding. Trump’s appeal is not that he’s ‘anti-immigration’. His appeal is his method – “round ’em up and ship ’em home!” “Build a great big wall!” These projects stir his followers’ imagination and fantasies. This is the difference between him and NR. Anyway, the key to an immigration policy is to start to enforce sanctions against employers – which would make hiring illegals unprofitable and staunch the flow – no wall necessary. Even self-deportation which is already happening anyway.

    1. Re: dajjal,

      Trump’s appeal is not that he’s ‘anti-immigration’.

      His appeal resides in his lovable demagoguery and cuddly xenophobic finger-pointing (“It’s their fault!”)

    2. His support is an expression of frustration that we have been talking about this issue for decades and nothing has been done to improve the situation.

      1. That’s a lie spoken by people who read magazines with articles like “The New Must-Have Gun You Need in Your Collection” and “Your Gun Collection Isn’t Complete Without this Gut-Buster” and “How to Prioritize Your Kill List”

      2. Re: Drake,

        His support is an expression of frustration that we have been talking about this issue for decades and nothing has been done to improve the situation.

        I don’t think so. I think his support is evidence that people are mostly motivated by gross envy and ignorance of even the most basic of economics. The Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem Dat Teeches Kudz to Red an Writ has achieved its ultimate goal – make everybody ignorant and stupid.

        1. I totally disagree. The fact is the majority of people have supported doing something to slow down or stop immigration for going on 20 years now and both parties have done everything they could to do the opposite. People are tired of it.

          Who are Trump supporters envious of? That makes no sense to me. They don’t envy the elites. They hate their guts and are tired of being ignored and the elites telling them how they should live and what they can and cannot say.

          And they are only driven by economic ignorance if you think it is their duty to sacrifice for the collective good. I understand you support open borders. That is not itself an unreasonable position. What is unreasonable, however, is to claim that no one’s interests are hurt by open borders and anyone who objects to it is just ignorant or racist and isn’t acting out of their own self interest, which they of course have every right to do.

          1. Re: John,

            Who are Trump supporters envious of? That makes no sense to me.

            “They Take ‘Er Jebz!”

            Doesn’t that resonate to you? Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and others have spewed that same claptrap over and over. Immigrants are taking OUR jobs! OUR JOBS, dammit! “What would you say to an unemployed American?” the odious Tucker Carlson asked Geraldo just a year ago in Fox and Friends, as if it meant something.

            Don’t play dumb. That’s envy-mongering right there from the likes of conservative pundits. Jobs belong to the employers, not to natives.

            1. Laura Ingraham and others have spewed that same claptrap over and over. Immigrants are taking OUR jobs! OUR JOBS, dammit!

              Has it ever occurred to you that those things resonate because they are true to some degree and they resonate with the people who are seeing it?

              Again, be open borders but do yourself and your cause a favor and stop pretending there are not costs to such. One of things that should make people skeptical of open borders is that the supporters like you seem incapable of admitting there is any downside to your position or that anyone could have a rational or even self interested reason to object.

              You and people like you sound a hundred times more collectivist and insulting and irrational than Coulter. You are the one accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racists. Do you understand how much collective hate oozes from your thoughts on this subject? You can’t even consider the possibility that people could have a legitimate objection or that they have even the right to have their opinions heard. If anyone is engaged in collective hatred here it is you and those on the open border side.

              1. Re: John,

                Has it ever occurred to you that those things resonate because they are true to some degree and they resonate with the people who are seeing it?

                But they are NOT true, John. First of all, jobs do NOT belong to employees, especially not by virtue of their nationality. That’s Marxian claptrap. Second, we’re talking about ignorant blowhards and rabble-rousers inflaming passions through misinformation and downright lies.

                do yourself and your cause a favor and stop pretending there are not costs to such.

                Like what? A person not being employed any more? I’m sorry but I must’ve missed the class where they explained how a sob story trumps Private Property rights and Contract rights.

                One of things that should make people skeptical of open borders is that the supporters like you seem incapable of admitting there is any downside to your position

                What are you talking about? There is NO downside to the position, John.

                Just to be clear, it is ONE thing to advocate for free movement of labor. It is quite another to invite people in with someone else’s money and property. If your scare is about government enticing people to migrate to a place through bribery, that’ an entirely different matter which has NOTHING to do with free markets. I always have and will advocate for peaceful, voluntary immigration.

                1. But they are NOT true, John. First of all, jobs do NOT belong to employees, especially not by virtue of their nationality.

                  Really?

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01……html?_r=0

                  They are totally true. You just think those people have no right to complain. Well, they think Mexicans have no right to come here if the people who live here don’t agree. Since they are the ones getting fired, I can understand why they would think that. You sadly apparently hate them so much you think it is their duty to sacrifice for the collective world good.

                  Like what? A person not being employed any more? I’m sorry but I must’ve missed the class where they explained how a sob story trumps Private Property rights and Contract rights.

                  Yes. That is a big deal to the person who loses their job. They have a right to not like it and vote accordingly. And of course them losing their job is just tough shit. The Mexican not being able to come here and take it is a national outrage. I get it Mexican, you hate these people’s guts and are happy to see them lose out. You are every bit the collectivist hate monger you claim Coulter is.

                  What are you talking about? There is NO downside to the position, John.

                  There is one hell of a downside to the people losing their jobs. You just don’t see it because you hate them and are happy about it. I don’t share your hatred.

                  1. Re: John,

                    They are totally true.

                    No, they’re not. And an article from the NYT does not suddenly make the argument that jobs belong to the EMPLOYER not true. Jobs belong to the EMPLOYER, John. Not to the employee.

                    That is a big deal to the person who loses their job.

                    Boo – fucking – hoo. And yet you don’t want to believe that all of this is nothing more than envy-mongering despite the fact you keep making the point for me.

                    So what if some people “lose” their jobs? They weren’t deprived. It’s not their money. Their employers simply stopped trading with them. When I stop buying at Walmart, can Walmart compel me to get back to them by force? Your basic argument suggests it.

                    1. So what if the Mexicans have to stay at home and fix their own country? Again, the NYT is totally pro immigration. So they are biased the other way.

                      Again, you think them losing their job is not big deal but the Mexican who can’t come here is some kind of national tragedy. I am sorry but the only difference is you like the immigrant and you hate the American. That is it. I don’t hate either of them or think the immigrant has a right to come here anymore than someone has a right to a job.

                    2. Re: John,

                      So what if the Mexicans have to stay at home and fix their own country?

                      Who are these “Mexicans” you talk about? I only know individuals.

                      I am not making any collectivist arguments. None. So don’t start.

                      you think them losing their job is not big deal but the Mexican who can’t come here is some kind of national tragedy.

                      I don’t know about “National Tragedy” and I don’t care for such hyperbole.

                      The imposition of a restriction in immigration is immoral for two reasons:

                      a) It is a direct violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and
                      b) It directly violates the right of people to freely trade with whoever they want.

                      There is NO difference between imposing a restriction on immigration and imposing it on any other good. It is nothing more than another crass attempt at Protectionism. That’s the argument.

                    3. It is nothing more than another crass attempt at Protectionism

                      Yes, that’s exactly what it is. This is what governments do. Protect their citizens, even if they only have the skills to mow lawns. So, then we are really arguing about whether the human tendency to band together and protect their mutual interests is immoral or not.

                    4. Re: CampingInYourPark

                      Yes, that’s exactly what it is. This is what governments do. Protect their citizens,

                      The concept “Protectionism” means imposing economic barriers by law to stifle competition, Camp.

                      So, then we are really arguing about whether the human tendency to band together and protect their mutual interests is immoral or not.

                      It IS immoral when it has nothing to do with protecting people’s property and liberty, Camp.

                    5. It IS immoral when it has nothing to do with protecting people’s property and liberty, Camp

                      A citizen with job skills easily replaced by imported labor might think restricting the imported labor is protecting the little property they might have, but yes, I understand it’s just tough luck and none of my concern as their fellow citizen.

            2. “They rape our wimmins!” This was the rationale behind Dylann “Storm” Roof’s attack on black people. Even though there is no evidence he ever even went on a date. The Trump dynamic is no different.

              1. Yeah, no rapes happening in Europe. There is no downside to mass immigration. Got it.

                1. HAHAHA right so we have 10 million immigrants in this country who came over decades and suddenly it’s ‘Europe Rape Crisis Everybody Panic!’

                2. Well, where’s the proof, John?? I mean, be reasonable – in an age with cell phone cameras literally everywhere there isn’t one pic or video of these so-called rapes. So what that the accused gangs come from places where that treatment of women – especially infidel women – is acceptable? They all just want a better life and live in peace with their neighbors!

                  1. The rape squads were also stealing phones as a little perk after they got their grope on. Who knows what might have been on those phones?

                    There are plenty of credible accounts of the assaults, if you look for them. There are also admissions that these assaults have been and are being covered up or minimized by the police.

                    The cherry, though, is that these gang assaults in public are a well-known feature of life in countries that these migrants are from. This fits a pre-existing pattern.

          2. I totally disagree. The fact is that we hired these people and paid them for years, knowing perfectly well that they were illegal. Now suddenly it’s a huge crisis and we need to round them up and ship them back home in boxcars? Sorry no. First of all that’s wrong and un-American. Secondly – WE HIRED THEM. Our own fellow citizens hired them and paid them. FOR YEARS. Blatantly breaking the law. You are trying to direct all your frustration at a vulnerable minority – this is basic fascism 101. Hitler was an expert on that. Trump isn’t bad, though he switches between illegals and muslims. Anyway, we have met the enemy and he is us. You can’t protect people from themselves. Unless you want to get into Soviet mental illness persecution thing, but that’s a whole nother ball of wax.

            1. Who is this “we”? No one who supports Trump hired anyone. Last I looked the Republican Cronies at the Chamber of Commerce were not backing Trump.

              1. HAHAHA right so let’s round up and ship out the immigrants because “Republican Cronies”.

            2. Boxcars? I think we can come up with a better alternative – like nice Coach buses. Think of all the jobs that will create, having to build enough to drive them back to the Rio Grande!

              1. And those German bitches are probably lying anyway Restoras.

                1. Women lie about rape all the time, unless they are a US undergraduate student.

                  1. US college culture: Please report anything you find unpleasant as rape.

                    Euro government culture: We have no interest in taking or doing anything about assaults by migrants.

                    Culture makes a difference. One will draw marginal and spurious reports, the other will deter and bury legitimate reports.

                    1. I dunno, RC. It sounds reasonable but the open borders folks say culture doesn’t matter at all.

                    2. Except when it’s yokel culture, gross

          3. “What is unreasonable, however, is to claim that no one’s interests are hurt by open borders and anyone who objects to it is just ignorant or racist and isn’t acting out of their own self interest, which they of course have every right to do.”

            This. There are winners and losers to open borders for labor.

            Losers: limited government, economic prospects for US laborers.
            Winners: big government, economic prospects for US employers, foreign laborers.

            There are winners and losers for open borders for welfare dependents.

            Losers: limited government, US taxpayers.
            Winners: big government, economic prospects for US employers, foreign welfare dependents.

    3. Anyway, the key to an immigration policy is to start to enforce sanctions against employers – which would make hiring illegals unprofitable and staunch the flow – no wall necessary…

      How about, instead, we remove the barriers to entry into the job force that make it unprofitable to hire above-the-board instead of incentivizing under-the-table labor?

      1. How about both? Then everyone is happy. I should be a politician!

      2. I am fundamentally opposed by the notion that employers should have to report who they employ and/or fire someone for reasons the government dictates. I am furthermore appalled by the popularity of throwing people in jail for the “crime” of hiring people. If you want to get rid of immigrants, then get out there and crack some skulls. Cracking down on employers is basically saying “we don’t want the immigrants, but we don’t want to look bad on TV”.

        1. “get out there and crack some skulls” – LOL hello Nazi.

          Anyway, you can impose fines or do a guest worker program. Then at least it’s above board. But yes of course employers have a responsibility to report who they employ. For all sorts of reasons – e.g. taxes. Either we have a country or we don’t. Do we have a country?

          1. The defining feature of a country is income tax withholding?

            … what do you think happens to people who don’t properly report their employees to the government and don’t pay the fines?

  10. Good grief, what a thread. I gave up half-way through the Cytotoxic / John spat. This is worse than an abortion thread.

    I have come to despise all of the labels people arbitrarily hang on themselves and others. Conservative, a term that gets thrown around constantly never means the same thing twice, and the term Libertarian is even worse. They are used as ad hominems more often than an honest descriptors of a person’s political views. I have been called conservative and libertarian, depending on who I am debating with, and neither was being used as a term of endearment. I am neither.

    Unlike that drunken lout Irish, I am not a racist. I am, however, a cultural bigot. There is a hell of a difference between race and culture where one is irrelevant and other other, not so much. All cultures are not equal by any measure. Cultures differ greatly in their practices regarding self-ownership, family, work ethic, individualism etc.

    1. I think most here have made it clear that people who come to America because they want to be Americans, who like what they see here and want to be a part of it, who put their necks and their money on the line to do so, are welcome. If I remember correctly John articulated this much in discussions before.

      Rounding up gaggles of people who have no idea what America is or who outright hate this country and shipping them here on the taxpayer dime is just as insane as ’round ’em up and deport them, then build a moat and fill it with alligators’.

      Immigration is not an undiluted good under any circumstances, nor it is a poison pill for our society. How about we start talking about ways to fix our completely dysfunctional immigration system?

      1. How about we start talking about ways to fix our completely dysfunctional immigration system?

        Because some people really want there to be no immigration enforcement, regardless of other factors, and some people really want there to be no immigration, regardless of other factors.

        Admitting there are trade-offs, even if many of them arise due to less than ideal circumstances, interferes with the disingenuous malintent of those two factions.

      2. Immigration is not an undiluted good under any circumstances, nor it is a poison pill for our society. How about we start talking about ways to fix our completely dysfunctional immigration system?

        Because that would require people to think and admit the other side has reasonable points. If you do that, you can’t virtue signal and feel superior to all the white trash. And since virtue signaling seems to be most people’s purpose in life these days, your idea of having a reasoned debate and coming up with reasonable solutions to problems isn’t going to happen.

      3. How about we start talking about ways to fix our completely dysfunctional immigration system?

        Because anything short of Open Border is a stake in the heart of Libertarianism and if we can’t have that we can’t have anything.

        *Reason Staff takes ball, goes home*

        1. It doesn’t help that there are a lot of people who pretty transparently want more immigration restrictions and stricter enforcement. Reason does a piss poor job of presenting their case, and some of their writers are mendacious on the subject, but finding a compromise between “open borders” and “closed borders” is basically impossible.

          1. The general Reason presentation juxtaposes cute li’l refugee kids, with fat, yelling white men.

            1. Funny how Reason was all about peaceful refugees until the whole New Year’s eve thing. Now they seem less interested in the subject. Sort of like how Ratherham was the only time in the history of the world a case of police and government corruption was of no interest to the magazine.

              1. What John? You mean that weird sex thing that happened one time? Stop your pants shitting. There is no crime wave destroying Europe, that is entirely a fabrication.

            2. Now RC, thats a bit too far. Saying that Reason writers resorted to the ‘ol widows and orphans canard is….uh….never mind.

    2. Cultural bigot.

      Catchy. And sure to drive Progressives into apoplexy.

      New Trump Slogan:
      Make America Culturally Bigoted Again

  11. I am in favor of an arbitrarily large amount of legal immigration.

    Not sure that I really want our wages harmonized with Mexico’s, however.

    On the gripping hand, good luck getting our “working class” out of the urban slums and back out mowing grass and spreading mulch.

    1. Remember back when “working class” meant people with normal jobs, not welfare queens? Funny how politics can change language.

    2. good luck getting our “working class” out of the urban slums and back out mowing grass and spreading mulch.

      The welfare state gives them a better deal for not working. Until working is the better deal, they would be fools to do so.

      1. The way out of welfare is:

        1. Get rid of the “marginal tax” problem, whereby somebody can end up in a worse fiscal position by collecting welfare and working/saving than just by collecting welfare.
        2. Get people out of the system, by phasing in stricter eligibility rules and setting hard cut-off dates.

        Something along the lines of:

        1. Your maximum monthly benefit will be reduced by some percentage of your monthly income and your total assets, but not dollar-for-dollar.
        2. Your benefit will be reduced if you recently a) purchased a “luxury item”, b) quit your job of your own volition, or c) increased your debt to asset ratio.
        3. Benefits paid for non-crippling disabilities, and benefits paid to non-citizens or on behalf of the children of non-citizens, shall be reduced year-over-year until eliminated.
        4. Limits will be placed on the number of consecutive and total months a benefit can be collected by an individual (except for crippling disabilities).
        5. No disability benefit shall be paid to an individual whose disability is self-inflicted.
        6. The appeals process will be limited to cases where an individual has not yet met the benefit limit and shall prioritize claims by individuals who have collected fewer benefits.
        7. Additionally, “public interest” claims may be filed over lax or inconsistent enforcement of eligibility rules, limitations of benefits, and penalties.

        1. I wsuold add one thing:

          There should be a single, separate tax for funding all federal welfare programs (SocSec, Medicare, etc.). That tax should be set annually at the amount necessary to fully fund those programs for that year. If benefits go up, so does the tax. Let’s have an honest discussion about what welfare we want to pay for.

          I’m confident that it will result in a reduction in the scope of welfare programs, because cutting welfare will benefit taxpayers, and increasing it will hurt them, quite obviously and directly.

          1. Let’s have an honest discussion about what welfare we want to pay for

            Honestly, 0, if it mandatory. I’m all for government providing the means to allocate voluntary contributions for people in need.

            1. I’m all for government providing the means to allocate voluntary contributions for people in need.

              Isn’t charitable giving tax-deductible as it is?

              1. Yeah, charity would be best, but as a compromise! I wouldn’t be so opposed to the government testing for need and meting out the goodies. It’s not like there aren’t employees available with time on their hands.

          2. Well, since all of this is pie-in-the-sky anyway, sure why not. If by some confluence of events, all of this came to pass, it would not survive the decade intact.

  12. Because what do conservatives know about conservatism, ami right?

    If they were true conservatives they would be for OPEN BORDEZ, because nothing says conservative quite like importing illiterate peasants, because you can never have enough people dependent on the state, and you can never import enough voters who wants to expand government power.

    You tell em, Cosmotarians.

    1. Re: buybuydandavis,

      If they were true conservatives they would be for OPEN BORDEZ, because nothing says conservative quite like importing illiterate peasants,

      That’s an interesting criticism, Buy. Pray tell, what is conservative about precluding ME from importing illiterate peasants if the labor I require does not call for anything more sophisticated than that?

      Isn’t the notion that the government, or “conservatives”, know what kind of labor *I* need the same as ? gulp! ? CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING?

      So, again ? what’s conservative about CENTRAL PLANNING, Buy? I am waiting, with ears open.

      1. “what is conservative about precluding ME from importing illiterate peasants”

        *You* should not have the unilateral power to determine who enters the polity of your neighbors.

        I know it is probably useless to explain this to the Cosmotarians, because ANARCHY BABY WOOHOO!

        1. the Cosmotarians

          OldMex is many things, but “cosmo” is not one of them.

        2. Isn’t the notion that the government, or “conservatives”, know what kind of labor *I* need the same as ? gulp! ? CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING?

          I would not prioritize your need for human widgets over the needs of US citizens to be free and not having further dependents thrown on them.

          From the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention:

          Mr. MADISON …He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.

          That sounds about right to me. Illiterate peasants probably fail on both scores.

      2. OMMA, I tend to believe that anyone should be able to come here and work, and nobody but citizens should get welfare. So, import all the peasants you want, put ’em to work, so long as they put no burden on me or anyone else.

        1. So, import all the peasants you want, put ’em to work, so long as they put no burden on me or anyone else

          Charlie Daniels said they were going to do it again

        2. So, import all the peasants you want, put ’em to work, so long as they put no burden on me or anyone else

          Charlie Daniels said they were going to do it again

        3. ” I tend to believe that anyone should be able to come here and work, and nobody but citizens should get welfare.”

          That’s a reasonable position, but let’s not pretend it isn’t a bad deal for US labor in competition with those imported workers.

          But I think it’s got further problems, as once you let people in here as workers, they will be able to stay as long as they like, on public assistance, because “we can’t have people starving in our streets” and “we don’t round people up and deport them” because “that’s not who we are”.

      3. Because your cheap workers go on welfare, vote for gun control, vote for higher taxes, and generally go around killing Americans, like in San Bernardino or in the case of Kate Steinly.

  13. I see the Republicans got riled up.

  14. Not sure how “laissez faire” became associated with conservatives, but I don’t think it’s really accurate in the broad sense. Conservative economics have mainly been middle-class-oriented with some upper class cronyism, whereas liberal economics are mainly lower-to-working class oriented with even more upper class cronyism.

    And it’s certainly culturally conservative, insofar as one goal of the KNs is protect the current culture against an influx of foreign memes.

    1. Right up through the Reagan Administration, being conservative meant opposing FDR and the New Deal. The big change in the meaning of conservative before that was Barry Goldwater’s abandonment of isolationism, saying that the communists were such a threat to American capitalism, internationally, that conservatives couldn’t afford to be isolationists anymore.

      The South flooded into the Republican Party with the Reagan Coalition, but even during the Reagan Administration, people used to complain that the liberal and conservative wings of each party had more in common with each other than, say, liberal Democrats had with conservative Democrats. A lot of that had to do with opposition to the New Deal, the Great Society, etc.

  15. If we really had “open borders” then what would be the economic advantage for any worker or business to relocate? No, it’s because we have closed borders that cheaper foreign labor exists in the first place.

    1. Borders aren’t the only factor in the existence of wage arbitrage. Taxation levels and respect for property rights come immediately to mind as other important factors. Open borders would increase wage elasticity and labor mobility but wouldn’t necessarily dominate over other factors to such an extent as to eliminate comparative advantage in labor altogether.

    2. If we really had “open borders” then what would be the economic advantage for any worker or business to relocate?

      We do have open borders economically. And even other nations have no sovereignty when dealing with the U.S.

      Go try to earn an income somewhere else, and the long arm of the IRS finds you. Open up a foreign bang account, and the long arm of the Federal government says, “Not so fast.”

      I’ll bet you a lot of other countries would like to have a little more sovereignty right about now.

      1. Open up a foreign bang account

        Is there an 800 number?

  16. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  17. Cruz and NR are behind Unconstitutional Trade Treaties that continue to strip millions of jobs from the USA…

    TPP: Dangerous Trade Agreements Great Betrayal – The CFR plans and facilitates things
    in a way they come to fruition practically unseen..Another Giant Sucking Sound!
    The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trans Pacific Partnership..
    Violating the US Constitution and chipping away at your freedom..

    TPP part 1 – Democracy: This is a term often used by Collectivists who have an esoteric
    meaning in their insider lexicon..
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Bryan/jw100.htm

    TPP part 2 – The CFR….Why does the Media avoid discussing it..
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Bryan/jw101.htm

    1. TPP part 3 – The CFR…A sliver on the tip of the iceberg regarding the depth of this evil..
      http://www.newswithviews.com/Bryan/jw102.htm

      TPP part 4: Dangerous Trade Agreements Great Betrayal – The CFR plans and facilitates
      things in a way they come to fruition practically unseen..
      http://www.newswithviews.com/Bryan/jw103.htm

    2. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree shipmate. The people here are likely more extreme than NR and Cruz on trade. But I’m sure the more adventurous types still might click on your shady links. Everyone loves a good CFR yarn.

  18. Bah. Are the anti-immigrationists still shrieking? Liberty includes both freedom of movement and freedom of association. So get over it. You’re either for liberty or you’re not. Stop trying to have it both ways.

    1. “You’re either for liberty or you’re not”

      Every freedom has a limiting case. This is disingenuous.

  19. For sane immigration policy.
    Libertarians should understand the need for libertarian State boundaries to protect its people, and expect, and accept all of the messy and tedious details involved. Let’s deal with the details, rather than paint bright colors on others reactions.
    To start with, how big is the “140,000” compared to the total for that One year. (140,000 is a pretty good-sized city. How many huge cities immigrated that year?) Who’s data is that? What are its methods?

  20. 1. This is a somewhat reductionist re-telling of NR’s position on immigration. There are a wide variety of views, most of them allowing for a healthy amount of H1B visas. Most writers explicitly draw a distinction between being “anti-immigration” and for the rule of law. It’s the blatant disregard for the law the Obama administration has shown in the area that is the source of most of the heartburn. If there is a criticism of immigration policy its that its NOT based on economic drivers but more often then not familial concerns.

    2. Conservatism has a somewhat more complicated relationship with the cultural than does libertarianism, and I think it bears highlighting. They view cultural institutions and traditions as having value DISTINCT from their relationship with the individual, thereby warranting some level of protection legal or otherwise. Great influxes of foreign labor threatens these in their view. Pluralism requires distinct sovereignties, and it being fundamental to conservatism in some cases trumps individual rights. When you wipe away distinct cultural enclaves with wave migration you erode the barriers of pluralism which in their view is the lone remaining guard against creeping majoritarianism.

    So while they’d agree the free flow of labor is vital to any economy, there’s a limit in which cultural saturation could jeopardize existing shared values (such as a belief in freedom of association) to which the society’s preservation is prioritized.

  21. I don’t understand. Doesn’t Cytotoxic usually post 57% of all comments on an immigration story? Slacker.

  22. Get over 13kM0NTH@ag15:-Let’s start work by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financialy rewarding I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earnin $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k lass month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr … I work –

    Going Here you

    Can Find Out

    https://WorkOnlineNet.com/gets/position

  23. make 99$ hourly-Let’s start work by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financialy rewarding I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earnin $9734 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k lass month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr … I work

    Going Here you Can
    .Check this

    ??????https://Google,Jobs,Planes.NET/position

    ????{..{{A Good Way of Earning More than today —-

  24. I think Trump’s views on immigration are as kooky as the rest of what comes out of his mouth when he’s pandering to his supporters…but if you feel the need to steal from the proggie playbook by resorting to the inherently dishonest and simple-minded labeling of favoring control of a country’s borders as “anti-immigration” then your own position on the issue is likely without much merit.

  25. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://qr.net/bvXsV

  26. Conservatives support high tariffs and low immigration. You are just projecting your libertarianism onto conservatives. Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln were strong supporters of tariffs to protect American workers and industries. Immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, gun control, higher taxes, more regulation, and more welfare. Which makes one wonder why so-called libertarians support importing more supporters of welfare, gun control, higher taxes, and more regulation. One would think you’re either not very bright or a stalking horse for the radical left.

  27. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  28. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  29. This is a preposterous article. Conserving the basic character of one’s population is perhaps one the of the bedrocks of conservatism, at least as far as immigration policy is concerned.

    As to the dubious cries of having insufficient labor at their disposal from business organizations, this is hogwash. We should not transform ourselves into Saudi Arabia (in terms of workers) with a bloated floating guest worker. With record underemployment and unemployment combined with absurdly high legal immigration figures, how would we possibly benefit from saturating the labor market even further? Moreover, the government assistance issue is a legitimate one. It is a fact, indisputable, that migrants, legal or illegal, consume more government resources than American-born citizens. Finally, and this is probably the most glaring issue with expanding the guest worker program whilst harming working Americans — the US, unlike virtually all other countries, practices birthright citizenship.

    Don’t couch stupid libertarian ideas in the form of arguments to appeal to conservatives.

  30. Europe is being genocided my millions of non-white Muslim invaders. 1000 women raped by these savages on NYE. How’s that open gates policy looking now?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.