Immigration

Justice, Not Amnesty, for 'Illegal' Immigrants

Granting "amnesty" supposes that a wrong was committed. But an immigrant without papers has done nothing wrong.

|

Anthony Quintano/Flickr

It speaks volumes that the dirtiest word in the Republican and conservative lexicon is amnesty. At a minimum, it exposes as a flagrant lie the claim that Republicans and conservatives want to expand liberty and limit government power. One cannot consistently praise the principle, central to the supposedly beloved Declaration of Independence, that "all men [that is, persons, not only Americans] are created equal" while also demanding that the government control some people's freedom to move.

One also cannot claim to be a champion of liberty and limited power while calling for measures to prevent people without papers from finding work or making a home in the United States. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a national database through which employers must run applicants' names when filling job vacancies. So much for the commitment to free enterprise. 

Donald Trump makes the most noise about "illegal immigration," which is merely government-speak for people coming here without the permission of politicians and bureaucrats. Americans would object to being forced to carry papers—hopefully. So if all people are created equal, why should some have to carry government papers just because they were born on the other side of an arbitrary line on a map? Trump, as is his wont, falsely claims that were it not for him, no one would be talking about this issue. That's nonsense, of course. For years Republicans have called for a wall along a hyper-militarized border. Maybe Trump wasn't paying attention. Who's surprised?

Regardless, it's clear that the worst thing that can be said about a Republican today is that he or she favors amnesty. Even candidates who oppose Trump's call for mass deportation and who would support "legalization" of "illegals" (after the imposition of fines and a requirement that they learn English) run like hell from the label.

The last Republican debate made this abundantly clear. Rand Paul, who's since left the race, said about Ted Cruz, "What is particularly insulting, though, is that he is the king of saying, 'you're for amnesty.' Everybody's for amnesty except for Ted Cruz. But it's a falseness, and that's an authenticity problem—that everybody he knows is not as perfect as him because we're all for amnesty."

Marco Rubio agreed, as he strove to escape the charge that he supported amnesty when he favored "comprehensive immigration reform" as part of the bipartisan so-called Gang of Eight.

Well, here's the irony: we all should oppose amnesty—but not for the reasons Republicans oppose it. What we ought to do about people without papers is nothing—except to let them live unmolested. That's the only policy consistent with the principles that conservatives and Republicans say they hold dear.

Ammon Shea of Merriam-Webster writes, "Amnesty means 'the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.' It comes from the Greek amn?stia, a word which means 'forgotten.'"

Granting amnesty, in other words, supposes that a wrong was committed. It's an authority's way of saying to an offender: "We will overlook—forget—what you have done. You are pardoned."

Thus a person without papers is not in need of amnesty: he's done nothing wrong, and so there's no cause for pardoning him. He should simply be allowed to go about his business in (as H. L. Mencken put it) the theoretical land of the free.

At this point, any good conservative or Trumpist would scream: "But he broke the law!"

No he hasn't.

To be sure, the immigrant without papers acted contrary to a statute, a decree promulgated by a legislative body. But law is another matter. (By the way, before someone crosses into the United States from Mexico or Canada, he is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. So can that person actually violate a congressional statute? Perhaps it is only his remaining in the country that violates the law.)

If conservatives really believed what they say they believe, they would not need to have the distinction between law and legislation explained. They would know that lex injusta non est lex—an unjust law is not a law.

Roderick Long, the libertarian philosopher at Auburn University, notes that this principle "was once, and indeed for over two millennia, the dominant position in western philosophy of law…. This doctrine was upheld by Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, by the Stoics and by Cicero, by Augustine and Aquinas, and by Blackstone as well. The traditional idea was that law must be distinguished from mere force by its authority, and that nothing unjust could have genuine authority." (From "Inside and Outside Spooner's Jurisprudence"; it will download an unpublished paper in Word format).

If anyone prefers an American source, I refer him to Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century natural-law anarchist and abolitionist. In an 1882 essay Spooner defined natural law as "the science of justice." It was, he said, "the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

He went on:

It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.

It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other."

A few years later, in a letter to President Grover Cleveland, Spooner noted that "justice is an immutable, natural principle; and not anything that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power," adding: "It is also, at all times, and in all places, the supreme law. And being everywhere and always the supreme law, it is necessarily everywhere and always the only law." (For a further discussion, see Long's posts "No Law But Just Laws?" and "No Law But the Natural Law?" here. Scroll down.)

So where does that leave our so-called lawmakers in Washington? Spooner replied:

Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them,—that is, all the laws of their own making,—have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men's duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations. [Emphasis added.]

If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men's obligation to do it, or to any man's right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night.

If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation.

It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature.

We can now see that any law requiring government permission to enter territory presumptuously described as being under the jurisdiction of the American State—that is, any regulation of immigration—is, in Spooner's words, a simple, naked usurpation and tyranny.

Since immigrants without papers do not violate the natural law, they violate no law at all. Thus amnesty would be as inappropriate as deportation. To deny this truth is to deny natural rights and to sanctify the injustice that is embodied in the state.

Trump and his rivals insist that if government does not enforce the borders we have no country. Perhaps, but so what? As Patrick Henry said when asserting the rights of Americans before the American Revolution: "If this be treason, make the most of it."

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

NEXT: Zoning and Zen

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. Well,this should be good.Got at it guys ( and ladies if you really are female)

    1. I agree. What right does anyone have to stop ISIS or the Taliban or Al Queda or North Korean spies or Chinese spies or Russian spies or anyone from entering our country? It’s a free country, right? And all men are created equal, damit.

      And why shouldn’t our welfare state give support to these same illegal aliens so they can live a better life than they were accustomed to even though they don’t put anything into that welfare system? It is the job of Americans to support the world’s poor, damit.

      1. The second amendment protects our right to armed insurrection against an unjust government. Who are we to judge ISIS for their resistance to our evil imperialism? Right?

        And Mexican ass secks.

        1. Yep, another Sheldon shit show.

      2. If someone is hired by a foreign government to come here to do harm, that is entirely different than someone coming here for a job. Learn the diffference, Trumpalo.

        1. We either are a country or we are not…

        2. Chipper — And how do you tell the difference?

          YOU CAN’T YOU FUCKIN’ IDIOT!

          1. Sure you can. The guy here for the job will be the one not harming anyone. The other guy prolly will. At that point it’s easy to tell and then you can arrest him, try him, convict him and punish him. Just like we do with everyone else in America who commits crimes.

            1. Amen, Bro, well said!

              Also we need a brain scan at the border… Wouldn’t it be nice to brain-scan and be able to tell the nasty-bastard assholes from the peaceful job seekers? The science is just about there, for this, the political will isn’t there yet…

            2. Francisco — So the guy in San Bernadino who had the job with the Health Department and killed a bunch of people kind of disproves your “The guy here for the job will be the one not harming anyone” theory.

              If you actually had a brain you would be able to foresee your own stupidity.

              1. Wasn’t Francisco being facetious ?

              2. EndtheGOP, let me get this straight. Your argument is that out of the thousands that come here for jobs, a few might be terrorists that want to harm us. Since you can’t tell which ones might end up being terrorists, we shouldn’t let any of them in.

                Now tell me, how is this different from someone that argues for gun control on the same grounds? Let’s not let anyone have guns, because a few will turn out to be crazy nutjobs that will go on a shooting rampage.

                1. The argument is that a person living on planet earth and not in libertarian utopia land can see the very obvious need for a border and to regulate the flow of immigrants into the country. Not only for security reasons, but also because we have a massive welfare state which cannot (and should not) handle millions of new wards. It’s funny how the welfare state always gets left out of these immigration discussion.

                  It is not the same as the gun argument because, for one thing, guns are a right guaranteed by the constitution while unchecked immigration for every member of the human race is not.

                  1. Chip Chipperson — Well said!

      3. End,

        Thanks for your logical, REASONable assessment of this fine article. Why indeed shouldn’t we expand the current “catch and release” process, recently re-instituted by Obama, that means no arrests of a border crosser just says “I’m a dreamer.” I mean, why not be clear, as the article says, and let the social media spread the word as it now does throughout the southern Western hemisphere.

        If this means favelas outside of all of our quasi socialist cities, whose leaders vie for votes with social service give – aways, so be it. If it means a permanent move toward more and more Euro-like expanding Fed Gov and taxation, since the Dems will become quickly the majority party, so be it. Thanks, End, for making the clear, breathtakingly logical light of libertarianism simple enough for humble little me to understand it.

  2. The Declarstion of Independrnce also discuss the politics that bands that connect us. This presupposes some sort of boundary to the political bands. If we have a right to dissolve these bands, do we have a right to decide who may or may not join our political bands?

    1. Heinlein posits that we have no rights except those we are willing to fight for. On that basis, the immigrants appear to have the better claim to living a free and unmolested existence.

      1. Ham,

        So the armed civilians wandering around various southern State borders with Mexico are justified in shooting border crossers? Per Bob?

        1. Strictly and ideally speaking, yes.

    2. If we have a right to dissolve these bands

      If you study the American War Over Slavery, you may find there were one or two people who raised the issue of whether or not states can leave the Union. I think they decided the answer was “no”. The American Revolution seemed to be a one-and-done thing.

      But if you study the American Revolution, you may find the real revolutionary part of it was that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. A rejection of the idea that kings rule by divine right, some people are naturally superior to others, that basic human rights are subject to a vote. The argument for the sovereignty of the individual, the Protestant values laid out by Martin Luther, is made about as it good as it gets right there.

      1. “sovereignty of the individual,”

        Didn’t Luther speak more of the sovereign state? I could be wrong.

        Renaissance humanists, by contrast, put the focus on the individual rather than God.

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

        1. Luther bought off the German princes by offering a tax cut.

          1. Luther presaged Sheldon by being aware of the machinations of theose crafty Jews.

            1. Yes, and he almost beat Superman a couple of times.

              1. And he would have, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

              2. MfK,

                Thank you! How can he be noted without giving him his super villain status? And of course he’d welcome an influx of population that would establish a large, quasi-serf class.

      2. “American war over slavery” ? Which one was that? You mean the one where Washington DC enslaved the south – and by extension all of us?

        That wasn’t so much a “decision” as the ultimate dictate. Indeed, the entire libertarian movement is a repudiation of that “decision”.

        1. You haven’t gotten the memo – the Civil War wasn’t over states’ rights, it was only about slavery. That’s how we know anybody talking about states’ rights is really dog-whistling about re-instituting slavery. They’re starting to use the word “federalism” now as if we’re too stupid to see right through that thin white sheet, but we know what they really mean. Same as when libertarians talk about “individualism”, “free speech”, “liberty”, what they really mean is maintaining the rich white male patriarchy, they’re threatened by all the right-thinking folks who understand that with enough votes you can just take whatever you want for the common good. And what’s more common than wanting free shit?

          1. You can’t disentangle the two. Slavery was the issue that states rights advocates were willing to fight over.

            1. Wrong. It was the assassination of states’ rights that Lincoln was willing to kill over. The south simply seceded. No fighting necessary.

              Furthermore, Lincoln was willing to victimize people in the north for his goal – dissidents were imprisoned, exiled, killed, including even journalists and government officials.

              The so called “civil war” was the destruction of the union as it was designed, and the Gettysburg address the most ironic piece of political propaganda ever produced.

              1. The south seceded before Lincoln took office.

                1. And they did this because they thought Lincoln would free the slaves.

                  Now, I am sympathetic to the idea that the north was hypocritical. They prospered for a century as a result of their access to plantation crops. Not really fair for the south to bear the sole brunt of the economic loss of the slaves. The north should have bought them.

                  But the fact remains that is was slavery that motivated the south to secede, even before Lincoln had taken office.

      3. “If you study the American War Over Slavery, you may find there were one or two people who raised the issue of whether or not states can leave the Union. I think they decided the answer was “no”. The American Revolution seemed to be a one-and-done thing.”

        Madison’s argument, during the Nullification debates of the 1830’s, was that a state *legislature* did not have the power to nullify a state’s membership in the Union, inasmuch as the Constitution was ratified by a convention of the *people* in each state. The idea of the senate — as a collection of states as political entities (senators were originally appointed by legislatures) — was juxtaposed to the idea of the house as directly-elected by the masses of each state, and was supposed to create a mutual check against the state and federal sovereignties.

        Of course, all of that is gone now, and with it the memory of competing sovereignties and the check they were supposed to have on each other. But, presumably — and following Madison’s argument — a state *could* secede from the Union through the passage of an amendment that had the approbation of the majority of *people* in each state.

    3. What is this “we” you speak of?
      If I want to employ a person who had the accident of being born in Mexico, then what gives you the right to stop me?

      In any case, we’re not even talking about citizenship here. We’re just talking about the right to employ and be employed, to rent to and from and to engage in any number of other voluntary free market transactions.

      1. But there’s a difference between hiring someone to work your land and having someone come onto your land, put up a homestead and use your resources without your permission.

        1. Are these immigrants squatting on public or private property? Are they building shanty homes on public land?
          No? They’re renting from willing landlords?

          Then what the fuck are you talking about?

          1. Then what the fuck are you talking about?

            Sorry. Didn’t think you were quite so literal.

            When an immigrant comes in illegally, they have already trespassed according to the law which is made (presumably) by representatives of the people owning the land trespassed upon. If the rent is paid for by monies intended for citizens by those same people’s representatives, then they are taking resources without permission.

            OTOH, if that same people, through their representatives, decides to open their borders to said immigrants–which we have done except that we have limiting quotas–then trespass does not apply. Similarly, if said people decide to give welfare to immigrants as well as citizens, then those immigrants are using those resources in good faith.

            I’m very much for legal immigration. Increasing quotas is a very good short-term solution to our current immigration problems. My MIL is an immigrant and she agrees with this position like many legal immigrants seem to. Maybe they’re merely taking the “I got mine” perspective, or maybe they respect the rule of law. Many libertarians seem to be stuck on the purity of their philosophy and consequently attempt to shut down all discussion with those who have a different perspective or differing ideas. I don’t know whether you’re one of those or not, but you sure seem to fly off the handle when someone says something that fails to fit your philosophy.

            1. owning the land trespassed upon

              So you’re saying you own my property, so I don’t have a right to rent it to immigrants?

              1. You may, so long as they teleport.

            2. So, in other words, the government should control all of the land in the US? Really?

              If someone from another country wants to work on private land and rent private housing in the US, then why should the state have any power to prevent this using force?

      2. Can we bill you for the social service costs?

        Borders. Welfare states. Blah blah blah.

        1. Can we bill you for the social service costs?

          You already do. It’s called taxes.

          1. He said you, not him

          2. No, we bill you for your portion. Not the mexican’s. I don’t think they pay income taxes, so they don’t pay their share of Medicaid.

            1. No, we bill you for your portion

              Since fucking when? I get billed for my portion and a couple other fuckers who pay nothing.

              Immigration isn’t a problem without illegitimate government programs. Fix the problem.

              1. Amen, Dude!

                A subtlety often lost in this debate is, DIFFERENT branches of government have different “irons in the fire” here. The Fed-gov likes semi-liberal immigration laws, generally (except when pandering to the right-wing nut jobs), because the illegal humans shore up Social Security by pouring in a TON of money (several billion a year) under fake SSNs, and they can never get that money back (’cause they’re criminal vermin using those fake SSNs, of course). Illegal humans are propping up the Social Security “Ponzi Scheme”, that is. Locals (States and cities) on the border (Calif. Ariz., etc) do NOT like it, because of the “unfunded mandates” imposed by the feds… You WILL pay to school the kids, and emergency health care, etc., and Uncle Sugar ain’t payin’ fer it. “Whose ox gets gored”, as usual. Give the illegal humans illegal black-market health care (that they consent to), and see how fast the AMA married to Fed-Gov shuts you down… As usual, assholes are seeking a FIGHT, not a solution… Solution = MORE freedom, NOT less!

              2. It’s still a problem when you have an endless supply of cheap labor flooding and no surging demand for those jobs. Immigration should benefit Americans first. Not the whims of foreigners.

      3. employing people who have entered and are staying in the US illegally is “aiding and abetting” their crime(s).
        it’s also “harboring” a fugitive”.

        you folks carry the “freedom” concept too far,you don’t use common sense.

      4. What gives me the right to stop you? The fact that I am currently being coerced to pay for the infrastructure and government programs that your employee will use; the fact that your choice to employ that either means that I will be legally forced to associate with them in housing and business.

        In a libertarian country, your argument would hold true. In the current coercive welfare state we live in, it does not hold true.

        1. In an actual libertarian country it would hold even less true. There would be no ‘public’ property–only negotiated and paid for rights of way, and that illegal would be wandering across the border onto land that belonged to someone who could defend it with lethal force.

          1. Correct. Bu in the US, that “negotiated and paid for right of way” is handled at the level of the federal government, and so is the group of people hired to defend it with lethal force.

  3. The Republicans — unlike soi-disant social-justice anarcho-capitalists like Sheldon Richman — recognize that one cannot have both open borders and a welfare state. They recognize that abolishing welfare is a non-starter in the US’s political climate, and some of them (consistent with their idea of smaller and more limited, but still existent, government) even like the idea of a government-provided “safety net” for some of society.

    What would Richman (tee hee, of course a Richman advocates for less government) limit the government to? Should it provide police protection to “undocumented” immigrants? Should it try to protect citizens and taxpayers from a race to the bottom against immigrants who are happy to live, stacked five high, in flop houses and work off the books so they can send money to the old country? Should it try to exclude terrorists and criminals who would take advantage of easy entry to perpetrate attacks on civilians?

    While Reason makes a lot of good arguments in favor of libertarianism, this kind of argument — that Republicans are hypocrites about reducing government or increasing liberty because they oppose open borders — damages the broader cause. It is transparently wrong, and it also assumes bad faith on the part of its targets.

    1. Should [the government] try to protect citizens and taxpayers from a race to the bottom against immigrants who are happy to live, stacked five high, in flop houses and work off the books so they can send money to the old country?

      So you think government officials should use force to “protect” you against people who do not live in houses as nice as yours? What if I decide to use that same force to “protect” me against your housing because it is less desirable than mine? You would make “living in a less wealthy neighborhood” a crime?

      And you would also like to criminalize spending money outside this country? What if you want to take a trip abroad and that protectionism was applied against you for the “crime” of engaging in mutually beneficial exchanges with people poorer than you?

      1. I don’t need the government to protect me against the people who live in flop houses — I am a successful professional, not the kind of low-skilled worker that these immigrants compete with. I am asking how many benefits of our society Richman wants to extend to people who are not part of it. If someone wants to live with five roommates in a three bedroom house, I actually benefit by them driving down the wages for people who do construction, yardwork, and so forth.

        On the other hand, people trying to raise a family can’t live like that. The kind of “protection” I was talking about there is limiting the number of immigrants so that they do not drive down the standard of living for the less-skilled citizens.

        When people immigrate without documents, it is much easier for them to live and work without paying taxes. Someone who avoids paying taxes undercuts a tax-paying competitor two ways: A fatter profit margin and consuming public goods that those taxes would pay for (to maintain a given level of tax expenditure with fewer taxpayers, the tax per payer must go up).

        I have no idea why you think tourism has anything to do with this. Tourism is not migration.

        1. When people immigrate without documents, it is much easier for them to live and work without paying taxes.

          You make it sound like not having documents is a positive advantage. If so, then why don’t you burn all your records and go into the job market pretending to be undocumented?

          1. HazelMeade, you are killing it on this thread. Every time I want to post a response I am like, nope, HazelMeade already said it.

            1. Hazel Meade is simply reciting the same stuff the open borders folks say in every immigration thread.

              It’s like there’s a Baltimore Catechism for unlimited immigration believers and they all learn the questions and answers.

              Pretty much the same with the closed borders types. The groups disagree on fundamental assumptions -postulates if you will – so logic won’t change minds on either side.

              1. Agreed. Purists will not entertain any argument that isn’t theirs. Not even for the sake of discussion. Some anarchists remind me of socialists/progressives in this regard.

              2. “Hazel Meade is simply reciting the same stuff the open borders folks say in every immigration thread.”

                It’s called being a libertarian and applying libertarian principles to immigration.

                1. It’s called putting the cart WAY before the horse.

                  Dismantle the welfare state, THEN we can talk about the libertarian case for open borders.

                  But you cannot simply fling open the borders with the welfare state intact and expect to have any kind of country left, much less a libertarian one.

                  1. And some folks are rooting for the collapse.

          2. This isn’t rocket science. Stop pretending like it is. I don’t do that because the government would easily notice that I stopped paying taxes on my income, and come asking questions. Likewise for my property taxes. Also because I consider myself an American, and think I should pay taxes in this country even though I think they’re far too high and far too frivolously spent.

            Those factors are different for people who have never been documented here, who might pay cash to live in a spare bedroom, who do not make nearly as much money as I do in a year, and whose allegiance is largely to another country. It’s also much more worthwhile for government to go after people who make a lot of money; it is really not worth it to prosecute someone who skipped out on $100 of net income taxes.

            1. LOL. You don’t do that because being undocumented is fucking HARD. Your job options are severely limited, you have no legal recourse if your employer doesn’t pay you, and you get no benefits. It’s hardly some sort of scam for tax avoidance, nevermind that undocumented workers often pay taxes under someone else’s social security number.

              1. No no. Getting a JOB is hard. Getting welfare, on the other hand, is extremely easy.

                See, job options will indeed be limited for an illegal because companies tend to ask for things like ID and social security numbers and so forth. But the local big-city welfare office? Nope. They’re likely not even allowed to ask for any of that. So what we’re doing is feeding people into a system in which their best option is to immediately join the welfare rolls.

                Hmm. It’s almost as if all this were some kind of deliberate effort to get people dependent on the government as quickly as possible, and then get them voting for the political party who promises even more welfare. Nah, that couldn’t be possible.

                Congrats on being a useful idiot to the progressive welfare state though. Well done.

              2. This is a “BUT MY FEELINGS,” SJW-level of “argument.”

                I’ve lurked a long time. You’re smarter and capable of better.

          3. “You make it sound like not having documents is a positive advantage. If so, then why don’t you burn all your records and go into the job market pretending to be undocumented?”

            That argument is disengenuous. You’re responding to a post that starts: “I don’t need the government to protect me against the people who live in flop houses — I am a successful professional, not the kind of low-skilled worker that these immigrants compete with”

            HazelM you are normally a pretty good debater, but here your emotion is overwhelming your reason.

            1. An emotion that favors leveling the playing field, so that non-violent people who want to do dirty, dirty, “demeaning” work, so as to feed themselves and their babies, and the grand-folks at home… Who WANT to do this “dirty” work for nickles and dimes, while American welfare and SS disability folks won’t THINK of touching the work… This kind of emotion is known as “simple lust for plain human decency, common sense, compassion, and justice.” If that makes me, too, and emotional twit and a ninny, then I stand PROUDLY with HazelMeade.

              1. You sound like a woman.

                1. More men should “sound like women” on these kinds of issues, if we EVER want to see long-lasting peace on this planet.

                  Lemme quote a manly-man warrior-type who I respect a SHITLOAD… Who saw enough WAR to sicken his stomach for several lifetimes, I would bet…

                  “Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.”
                  Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  1. Says the President who then went on to detonate over 141 nuclear weapons and threatened their use to advance American interests abroad.

                    “However, the United States cannot afford to preclude itself from using nuclear weapons even in a local situation, if such use. . . will best advance U.S. security interests.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

                    “Eisenhower began transferring control of the atomic stockpile from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to the military. Europeans were terrified that the United States would start a nuclear war, which Eisenhower threatened to do over Korea, over the Suez Canal, and twice over the Taiwan Strait islands of Quemoy and Matsu.”
                    http://thebulletin.org/japans-…..-and-peace

                    If you’re going to respect a man a shitload, you should give proper perspective to the man. Based on this little bit of of additional information, Eisenhower didn’t see enough war and only talked a big game about peace. It would seem his stomach was quite fine when ti came to war and massive destruction.

                    1. Thanks, Titan… I did read your (kinda late) post. I do ‘fess up that I have NOT studied up on Eisenhower that much. I also read (too lazy to research it at the moment) that his military folks wanted to A-bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail (could even have been a later Prez.; I am not sure). “What have you boys been smoking?” was the basic response. Wasn’t there a proto-Vietnam War (French sponsored) brewing in the way-early stages, even back in Eisenhower days? Might have been Kennedy or LBJ, who knows, who called “the boys” down on this one…

                      Well anyway, sorry to hear of the pro-war side of Prez E. … I would like to remember him for the “good game” of peace he at least talked of…

          4. I think the reason why unskilled illegal migrants readily accept the risk of not paying taxes while skilled legal immigrants and citizens do not should be readily apparent. Hazel, even you can figure it out if you spend a minute on it.

    2. For you rich folk, it’s a race to the bottom. For the poor it’s a race to the top.

      The idea that government violence be used to artificially prop up your lifestyle is disgusting.

      1. Poor is relative. Most illegal immigrants are racing against our current poor to the bottom: They are willing to accept a lower standard of living than native Americans, in part because that is still an improvement from their previous situation.

        1. So, government violence needs to be used to prop up the American lifestyle, which can only happen through stifling economic competition, with a side order of

          When people immigrate without documents, it is much easier for them to live and work without paying taxes.

          “Those people are avoiding the predations of my authoritarian government, and that’s not fair.”

          1. Exactly. It is not fair that our working (lol) poor are forced to accept third world wages.

            That said, clearly our conditions are such that poor blacks are not willing to work in slaughter houses and Mexicans are. I don’t know if that is a function of welfare payments being too high, or slaughter house conditions being too bad.

            Likewise, it can be awkward to argue that it is ok to import fruit from Mexico, but not to import Mexicans to pick fruit. Perhaps the reality is that we shouldn’t really be using so much water to grow fruit in California.

            But I think it matters in which order you try to break the cycle of Mexicans doing jobs Americans won’t do. First question to answer is why Americans won’t do them.

          2. Look, I get that anarchists who equate government with thuggery are going to be in favor of open borders and every man defending his property with a fully automatic weapon. You haven’t rebutted the essential point that illegal immigration faciliates, and is associated with, avoiding taxes that pay for social services. You’ve just changed the topic to “taxes are evil!”.

            1. It seems churlish to bring up the topic and then stomp one’s foot when other people quote you on it. You said that today, not that one time back in 2011. What, exactly, are you asking for here, a ten-minute window past which your comments must be memory-holed?

              “Just” also is a bit unwarranted. Either you don’t understand the concept of a side order, or you are deliberately being obtuse. Considering you did not, presumably cannot, address the issue of requiring state violence to stifle economic competition, my money is on the latter. No wonder there’s so much waving about “anarchy!” and “but enough about me, let’s talk about you!”

              Nice try, Slick. Stop being a princess and address the point.

              1. You attempted to make some argument that relies on what is essentially an anarchist presumption about the proper size and scope of government. I reject your presumption on that count, and pointed out that your argument falls flat if I do not share your presumption. Don’t get all pissy when someone points out the flaws in your argument.

                As a side note, you are not winning any points by repeatedly claiming that government action is inherently state/government “violence”. It just makes you look like the basement-dwelling variety of anarchist.

                1. But it is violence. You’re just calling names, not refuting the obvious.

                2. Explain how the state works, if not by violence.

                  When you fail at that, explain the logic by which you conclude that violence is required to achieve your goals, and the moral and ethical rationale as well.

                  You mansion-dwelling variety of statist.

                  1. How does private property work, if not by ultimately relying on violence?

                    Governments rely on violence when people go far enough afield from what the government permits. That’s essentially the definition of government: It is legally privileged to initiate the use of force. When you take the stance that this makes government illegitimate, you come across as an anarchist. When you say that recognizing a government is an “addiction to state violence”, you sound like a crackpot. Most people argue about which government policies justify the backstop of using force — and disagreements ensue because people give different weights to liberty, safety, the public good, and other factors.

                    1. Initiation of violence is different than defending oneself against violence with violence (I should have been more explicit in my challenge). Private property only requires the latter. The state is in the business of the former. Indeed, the only thing differentiating the state from any other human social organization is that it embraces the initiation of violence in order to coerce behavior it prefers. (Well, not totally different – I suppose that definition fits organized crime as well)

                      Btw, let’s stop the name-calling, k? I think your views are crackpot, too, but I don’t resort to that to make my point.

                    2. The state is in the business of the former.

                      An odd thing to say, when we’re talking about illegal immigrants, who are people the government is supposed to be keeping out.

                    3. Yes, and people who use land and facilities that I paid for are initiating violence against me. Like when illegal migrants come to the US and use federal, state, and local infrastructure. The fact that I myself was coerced to pay for those facilities, instead of doing so voluntarily, doesn’t alter the fact that I did pay for them.

                3. But is the Violence inherent to the system? Do we get a vote? I didn’t vote fore you…..

                  1. Elp, elp I’m being repressed.

                4. “As a side note, you are not winning any points by repeatedly claiming that government action is inherently state/government “violence”.”

                  Who cares about facts when we could be winning points!

            2. You have the cart before the horse. The point is these problems that you are concerned about are caused by your addiction to state violence. It’s a little disingenuous to say, “look at this problem – what are we going to about it” when your preferred policies are the ones causing the problem.

        2. Open borders will destroy this country.

          1. Open borders will destroy Pittsburg! Good jobs for good Pittsburg residents! Keep them that thar Philadelphia scum and their products OUT!!! Dammit!!!

            So… You know, whether the Philadelphia scum produce in Philadelphia, or Pittsburg, it’s not a whole ton of difference, and local production is often more efficient, considering transport costs… At the logical extreme, do NOT trade with the folks down the street! Good jobs for Suicidy and the folks at his house! You will be doing your own iron-ore-mining, shoe-leather-tanning, and home dentistry! Then you and your next-door neighbor will at least be EQUAL! (In your equal poverty). If by “this country” you mean knee-jerk nationalism, or knee-jerk “gotta be better than them”, rather than a higher standard of living for EVERYONE… Then I want to see this nation brought to it’s KNEES! And I, like you, am a military veteran, so don’t trot that shit out on me… I offered to fight for FREEDOM for ALL, not just for Americans! And I’ll be damned if I served so that I, as an American, can eat mud sandwiches decorated by fancier-looking worms that the worms decorating the mud sandwiches of the illegal humans. I served so that we can eat meat-and-cheese (or veggies if you prefer) sandwiches, everywhere… If I as an American eat a less-fancy sandwich than the illegal humans, if it is not a MUD sandwich, I will have served well! Better is better, over-all, and one-up-man-ship can KISS MY ASS!!!!

            1. You’re comparing migration of existing American cities to foreigners sneaking into our country by the millions. “Spurious analogy” doesn’t even begin to cover it. You’re just an idiot for even saying all that.

              Seriously, get some fucking perspective.

              1. What is so magical about the difference between international borders and inter-state or inter-city borders? Free trade (including free trade in labor) is good, and endless anti-freedom machinations of Government Almighty is bad. That simple… Less freedom, more poverty for all…

                PS, my ancestors from Germany, hundreds of years ago, had to swallow their gold (wealth from selling houses and farms) and re-cycle it from their poop, in order to not get all their wealth stolen by “customs and immigration” officials as they crossed 40 (forty!) borders to get to Holland and ships to America, for a wee tad of freedom. Many-many of those “borders” were between fellow German-speaking “nations”… A shit-load of borders is not such an outrageously implausible situation. The less borders, the more freedom, because the PIGS just can’t seem to resist the temptation to exercise too many powers at the borders.

        3. Hence, the welfare state. Libertarians who favor open borders must necessarily favor the Welfare State, too. A U.S. citizen who fails to obtain a job because of some illegal who accepts working for less will often, if not usually, be supported by the State, perhaps for a long time.

      2. There is no “artificial propping up”. Rather, the US as a whole represents a huge investment in infrastructure that current US citizens and their ancestors have paid for. It is entirely reasonable to limit access to that investment, in the same way my HOA limits access to the landscaping and facilities we paid for with our HOA fees.

        1. But an illegal immigrant who has just arrived should have the same right to that investment as anyone living here for all their life. From each (the U.S. taxpayer) according to his ability, to each (the illegal immigrant) according to his needs. Perfectly libertarian-ish.

          1. From each (the U.S. taxpayer) according to his ability, to each (the illegal immigrant) according to his needs. Perfectly libertarian-ish.

            You need to read up on basic history and politics.

      3. There is no “artificial propping up”. Rather, the US as a whole represents a huge investment in infrastructure that current US citizens and their ancestors have paid for. It is entirely reasonable to limit access to that investment, in the same way my HOA limits access to the landscaping and facilities we paid for with our HOA fees.

      4. There is no “artificial propping up”. Rather, the US as a whole represents a huge investment in infrastructure that current US citizens and their ancestors have paid for. It is entirely reasonable to limit access to that investment, in the same way my HOA limits access to the landscaping and facilities we paid for with our HOA fees.

    3. it also assumes bad faith on the part of its targets

      When the GOP has been arguing for my whole lifetime that they’re in favor of smaller government, when they have control of the majority of state legislatures and governorships plus the House and the Senate, and we still somehow have an even bigger government thanks in part to the direct action of that same GOP, it’s hard not to assume they’re arguing in bad faith. As you say “They recognize that abolishing welfare is a non-starter in the US’s political climate”. They fucking control most of the goddamn government in the country, yet they’re powerless to make any attempt to take some pruning shears to the welfare state jungle? They elected Mr. Fiscal Conservative Paul Ryan Speaker so that he could pragmatically give the Dems another blank check? No, they aren’t powerless – they have no interest because it might cost them votes and then they’ll lose power and then how can they carry out their plans to take pruning shears to the welfare state jungle? We have to be pragmatic, be reasonable, be willing to compromise – for what? Fuck you, cut spending. Cut taxes, cut regulation, cut a big damn chunk out of the bureaucracy.

      1. Blame the voters.

        What happened to W when he campaigned for social security reform? He got tarred and feathered on the issue.

    4. Why is it that immigration in particular is incompatible with the welfare state?
      What about unrestricted births? By the same logic, shouldn’t we ban people on welfare from having babies, or mandate that they use long-term birth control?

      1. Hush, Hazel…you are making it sound as if it’s the welfare state that’s wrong instead of all these goddamned furrinerz.

        1. OF COURSE IT IS THE WELFARE STATE THAT IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM.

      2. That is why we subsidize abortion according to Pelosi.

      3. Popping out a baby means giving up current tangible goods for intangibles and/or the expectation of far-future returns, even given welfare. (If having a baby means a net increase to your material resources due to welfare, the government screwed up incentives. That wouldn’t be surprising, but fixing that should be the focus, rather than using an awful welfare regime to justify an awful immigration regime.) Emigrating to a different country is usually driven by a very short-term expectation of tangible return.

        1. On the contrary, immigrants move to the a new country for a very long-term gain — giving their kids and grandkids a better life.

      4. Why “ban people on welfare from having babies, or mandate that they use long-term birth control” when we have a private, publically funded, company to pursue the same ends without government intervention (well, except financial intervention)?

      5. Yes, it would be better for the country if people on welfare stopped having babies. However, forcing them to do so is considered wrong in a way that not letting any non-citizen who wants to come here and suck on the teat is not

        1. However, forcing them to do so is considered wrong in a way that not letting any non-citizen who wants to come here and suck on the teat is not

          Asserted, therefore true?

          The argument that there are tax consequences applied equally $100 out of my pocket at the point of government’s gun to pay a US-born welfare family is no different than taking that same C note from me to give to a family that’s still toweling off Rio Grande water. And the latter, I would guess, is much more likely to end up working than the former.

          1. syntax: garble

            I plead hung over from some great Mezcal.

      6. I’m pretty sure everyone here has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that the welfare state is the problem, not necessarily immigration.

        Though, I have to say letting people in from third world shitholes tends to make the current citizens live’s not much better.

        I’m for open borders with Canada, but not Somalia.

        1. I’m pretty sure everyone here has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that the welfare state is the problem, not necessarily immigration.

          Exactly. (I’ll just assume you meant to say “illegal immigration.)

          Now, which is more feasible: border enforcement or welfare abolishment?

          Border enforcement is actually on the books as law, and we see it work pretty well in other parts of the world. We may live to regret the consequences (policed borders keeping people in as well as out and all that), but it’s theoretically doable. And it’s the law.

          In contrast, neither party has ever done anything about welfare’s continuous growth, even when elected to do so. (In fact, one party exclusively demands more and more welfare.) And the very people who want welfare programs slashed will complain if their own handouts disappear. So welfare programs are going nowhere.

          So… we stay the course? Simply because, in a non-existent, impossible, perfect world, we would have no borders? Or do we just wait until the entire system implodes and hope what replaces it isn’t too horrific? Because I doubt we’ll get anything but European-style socialism at BEST.

          Libertarians will not be taken seriousy until they drop impossible nonsense like open borders. Continuing to argue for it comes across to sane non-libertarians the way communists do when they claim their objectively unworkable, failed, murderous ideology just hasn’t been “done correctly.” In other words, out of touch with reality.

      7. Don’t you mean “illegal immigration” ?

      8. The difference is that citizens have a legal right to reproduce, and thats not changing. Noncitizen do not have a legal right to enter the US.

      9. When you are granted Welfare – citizen or Criminal Trespasser – you get sterilized. . temporary, of course – once you get off the teat, the process is reversed.

        If *you* can’t feed your kids – DON’T FUCKING HAVE THEM!
        Every penny of my rightfully-owned property that’s been stolen to pay for your kids to eat – that much less available to feed my own family.

        (note that I’m not saying *you* as in *personally* just you as general pronoun)

    5. “recognize that one cannot have both open borders and a welfare state. ”

      You can’t have open borders and a free state.

      When you import people you import their politics with them.

      And the two issues play together – people who come because the welfare state looks like a great career move of course will be in favor of more government power.

      1. Nonsense. Libertarianism is self evidently wonderful. Why should we worry about immigrants bringing a different system.

        But yeah, it is pretty funny to think that having failed to win any elections of substance, the libertarian cause will be advanced by bringing in more socialists.

        1. And the exact same argument was made about the chinks and the jews and wops and the micks and the (pick an ethnic, religious or racist slur)…

          Christ on the cross, you guys are like a broken fucking record. Why in the name of god would people run away to the land of opportunity only to bring the source of their past misery with them. Communists, socialists (pick an ist) don’t escape to America because they like where they are.

          1. And the exact same argument was made about

            If you’re talking about past waves of immigration, say the early 20th century, note that we didn’t have a vast welfare state to feed off of then, *and* we’ve turned out less free since those waves.

            Liberty in America and around the world is largely an inheritance from the Brits and Scandinavian countries.

            There probably was once a selection bias for immigrants to the US, who wanted to be a part of that inheritance. With the advent of the Welfare State in the 60s, a strong new reason to come to the US was instituted.

            Why in the name of god would people run away to the land of opportunity only to bring the source of their past misery with them.

            Economics. How many billions of people would be better off immigrating to the US and living off public assistance?

            Also as much as we have problems, we have institutions that better ensure a safety and freedom.

            But that doesn’t mean they like everything, and wouldn’t be happy having government change things by force. The US is really an oddity in terms of freedom of speech, for example.

          2. Yes, immigration is a good thing and immigrants generally contribute positively to the US. Saying that isn’t the same as saying that immigration should be unlimited or uncontrolled. Not does it mean that noncitizen have any kind of right to enter the US.

          3. Christ on a cross, indeed.

            If these people running for the border are leaving their past misery at home. . . why do the neighborhoods in which they reside tend to look and feel EXACTLY like the 3rd World shithole they ran from?

            In my hometown, there was a neighborhood that, when I was in my teens and 20s, was a quiet middle-class neighborhood.

            When I moved back after my first marriage fell apart, when in my late 30s – that same neighborhood looked just like Mexicali did the one time I went – garbage everywhere, dead cars, houses with broken windows and broken doors and peeling paint.. . . half naked filthy rugrats running wild in the streets.
            Not a word of English was heard.

            It would be a neat trick if they were able to leave the source of their misery behind, considering that THEY are the source.

            1. I live in Mexico, and where I live is most certainly not a shithole.

              Although there are many people in Mexico who live in very impoverished conditions, there is a large middle and upper class as well.

              1. Something tells me that it isn’t the middle and upper class that are jumping the fence.

        2. “why should we worry about immigrants bringing a different system”?
          We have LAWS here,and people inside the US are expected to live by them. this is not an anarchy. Next,there’s Sharia Law,that Islamics want to live by,and that includes mistreatment and subjugation of women,genital mutilation,etc. (they also want to kill all the Jews.)

          Libertarians are irrational. Naive and gullible,too. They share that with the “progressives”.

          1. this is not an anarchy

            But some of the people bringing the argument you’re speaking to are anarchists.

          2. Libertarians are irrational.

            Anarchists are irrational. There are plenty of libertarians who are not anarchists.

            They share that with the “progressives”.

            And you shouldn’t tar libertarians in general with the proggy love Reason has been infected with. It’s relatively new here, and not widespread in libertarian circles.

            1. Anarchists are completely rational – they may actually be the most rational among us.

              http://libertyupward.com/quote…..-it-means/

      2. What makes you think that native-born Americans will be any less likely to support expansion of the welfare state? Look at the Bernie Sanders supporters — they’re pretty much all white college kids.

        1. What makes you think that native-born Americans will be any less likely to support expansion of the welfare state?

          Because as much as the US tradition of Liberty has faded, the US general population has a greater belief in Liberty than other countries.

  4. Donald Trump makes the most noise about “illegal immigration,” which is merely government-speak for people coming here without the permission of politicians and bureaucrats.

    The sad part is, someone is certain to waste their time attempting to give this author a more substantial response than a punch in the face. It’s too bad he doesn’t make movies. Libertarians would have their own Michael Moore.

    1. Nichiren Daishonin once said, “True words grate the ears”.

      1. “Nichiren Daishonin once said, “True words grate the ears”.”

        That may be true, but Stupid words also grate the ears. And it’s not always clear at to what type of words they are.

    2. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a waste of time to give you a more substantial response than a punch in the face. Why are you such a pants-shitting coward that you’re so afraid of immigrants you’ll mewl for the same government that fucks you every damn day to protect you from the scary monsters that might be coming over here to fuck you? If the immigrants come over here to fuck you, shoot ’em in the goddamn head like a man, that’s why we’ve got a right to keep and bear arms, to defend ourselves from rapists. Just because you’re a pussy doesn’t mean the rest of us gotta live in your goddamn pussy-ass daycare center.

      1. Your point is lost on him. As the Ridley Report noted, those setting up the Turn-Key Totalitarian state are playing these chicken littles like a harp from hell. It’s surprising how many times I’ve had to make this argument about REALID, E-Verify, etc. in even putatively liberty-minded circles.

        1. Yeah, I had to throw a beer bottle at the TV when Cruz started hammering his crap about E-verify. You know why so many companies are fleeing the US? It ain’t the taxes so much as the never-ending burden of regulation – like E-Verify. Just airily talk about imposing some new cost on business like it’s no big deal, there’s your business-friendly GOP.

          1. Listen, Jerry, it’s quite simple. Do you want a favorable climate for business or do you want Ali, Jafar, Osman, and Mohammad running a train on your daughter?

      2. We don’t need millions and millions of illegals swarming into the US. Goddamn ,some of you people go full retard on this subject.

      3. I like immigrants. I’m one myself. That doesn’t mean that I believe in open borders. Nobody has a right to immigrate anywhere, and until one becomes a citizen, one is merely a guest in a country.

  5. Pretty Sure Sheldon is just trolling the commentariat at this point.

    1. It’s his schtick. Personally, I think his life would be more fulfilled through video games, but everyone needs a hobby.

      1. Or he is helping reveal that * some * members of the commentariat don’t particularly care for much liberty for people currently living in places without the permission of government thugs = that the “papers, bitte” mentality isn’t viewed with repugnance by many people on a purportedly libertarian website.

        1. Dude, that wasn’t exactly a secret.

        2. Why don’t you focus on your idea of liberty for the people legally living here in the U.S. first, then for the rest of the world.

    2. It’s a shame that so much of the commentariat here is capable of being “trolled” by Reason’s own writers.
      If you hate so much of what Reason advocates, get the fuck out.

      1. If you hate so much of what Reason advocates, get the fuck out.

        I’m pretty sure I was here long before Sheldon and the recent wave of Proggy Friendlies.

        If Reason wants to ideologically cleanse their long time readers who don’t appreciate their turn to the dark side, they can man up and try to kick us out. Don’t go halfway Proggy – shut down the comments section so the icky old peasants can’t have their say. It’s what all Proggy sites are doing.

  6. Neato! Three comments already demonstrate complete failure to comprehend the point of the article.

  7. I should have refreshed…

  8. “Trump and his rivals insist that if government does not enforce the borders we have no country. Perhaps, but so what?”

    No wonder he’s so quick to compare American soldiers to Adam Lanza.

    1. Here is where Richman made the comparison:

      “Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between what [Chris] Kyle did in Iraq and what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It certainly was not heroism.”

      1. note – most people at H&R are familiar with this quote and have even made a meme of it, but I suppose there may be some people who hadn’t heard about it.

        1. To be fair, Richman does a good enough job shitting in the well himself.

      2. Well, Chris Kyle WAS a murderer, so why do people have such a problem with the comparison? Killing in the name of the State is not murder? While I agree that killing children is more despicable, killing people is murder, unless done in self-defense. What Kyle did was most definitely not self-defense, but was i stead the defense of invaders.

        1. People have a problem with the comparison because it’s morally retarded. It’s not murder if it’s justified, and killing those who fight against freedom is as justified as it gets ‘invader’ or otherwise.

          1. Sush, Nathaniel Branden’s Head. Shhhh. Only dreams now.

        2. You appear to be unclear on the concept of “murder”

          It is the illegal killing of another person, not the immoral killing of another person.

          1. “It is the illegal killing of another person…”

            Killing someone either legally or illegally doesn’t make you a hero. Heroism is about going beyond the call of duty, usually sacrificing oneself in some way.

            1. Chris Kyle di end up sacriicing himself trying to help out a fellow vet. So he is a hero.

              1. Regardless of what we think of his actions in Iraq, the event that ended his life was unfortunate. Let’s just say that taking a mentally unstable person to the gun range wasn’t the best idea. I would not call his actions there heroic, though. Kind, yes, well-meaning, yes, but he did not sacrifice himself. Sacrifice implies a choice to give up one’s life for another. I guarantee you Chris Kyle did not expect to give up his life that day.

        3. It was war, not murder.

          1. “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” – Voltaire

    2. OK, look, I hate to “pull an Eddie,” but here is another point I just thought of.

      The Kyle = Lanza article says that people who defend their country against foreign invaders are heroes.

      That’s why Richman said it was heroic of Iraqis to resist the American “invaders.”

      He claimed that Americans who resisted foreign invasion of America would be heroes.

      But if “we have no country,” then why would it be heroic to defend that country? I mean, defending something that shouldn’t exist – how can that be heroic?

      1. I’m sure Richman would say his comments were about defending themselves, not their country.

        Furthermore, the usg clearly targeted them based on their nation-state affiliation, so from a mere semantic point of view it makes sense to speak in those terms.

        1. Why defend yourself? It is just one illegitimate warlord displacing another, right? So we should just stay out of the way.

      2. Because Sheldon is primarily filled with shit.

  9. Richman’s articles seem to go like this:

    Such-and-such is the only political position which a true lover of liberty, or a compassionate person, could possibly hold. Therefore anyone who acts on different principles is not merely mistaken, but an evildoer and probably a liar.

    1. All those, and a jooooooooooooooo too.

    2. I thought that was the Cliff’s Notes summary of The Fountainhead.

  10. In a world where the world’s population is more or less on the same page economically and philosophically, I think the open borders idea can make some sense. But we don’t live in that world.

    1. “But we don’t live in that world….”

      People here want open borders for goods and services. They call it Free Trade. It seems that consistency calls for open borders for people as well, so at least they have the same freedoms.

      Making an exception to Free Trade of goods and services on the basis of economic or cultural difference is an argument that is typically made by Leftists and holds very little water here.

      1. What a shit analogy. Goods and services don’t go on the public dole.

        1. And they don’t vote.

      2. Free trade only started working once we got rid of tariffs, barriers to entry, and subsidies. All of those still exist in labor markets, which is why we don’t have and can’t have free trade in labor… Yet.

  11. I agree that asking for papers for work, etc is anti-liberty. It is not against liberty for a country to define and control its borders. What we need is a don’t ask don’t tell policy. But if we do ask (ie, you are charged with a crime) and it is apparent you are in the country illegally, back you go.

    1. I am afraid that your reasonable position is rejected on the grounds that it does not fall into either “messican rapists” or the “zomg!! gestapo!!” camps.

      1. Sanctuary cities!

  12. Things are going swimmingly in Europe I see. I’m not saying yea or nay,just watching the news. Although I find it funny that all the protesters in Europe are being call ‘far right’.With the problems they have I think it’s more broad then that.

    1. Just spitballing here, but it very well could be a nasty nexus (that’d be a good band name) of the European’s cultural tendency to segregate other cultures and the fact that there is little cultural pressure to assimilate, so you end up with a bunch of Little Al ‘Raqqas scattered around the Continent.

    2. And Reason linked that story about the woman in Australia who showed up at her own funeral the other day. So what we have there is 3 immigrant hitmen, a man (refugee) who tried to have his own wife killed, and a refugee with 8 kids on welfare.

      Fantastic.

    3. Note that the powers that be in Europe can manage to find an army of police to control and arrest “far right” political protesters protesting government immigration policy, but they can’t quite muster any cops to combat open sexual assault by hundreds of men out in the open in public.

  13. One cannot consistently praise the principle, central to the supposedly beloved Declaration of Independence, that “all men [that is, persons, not only Americans] are created equal” while also demanding that the government control some people’s freedom to move.

    Freedom of movement and “created equal” are not the same concept. One can easily praise equality of birth, or equality under the law without supporting free movement across an international border. Besides, hundreds of thousands of people cross our borders every hour–they are just not allowed to stay without permission.

    Richman is either disingenuous or doesn’t really get the Declaration of Independence.

    1. Huh? If equal then how do you make the distinction to be able to exclude? Separate but equal doctrine?

      1. Because the concept has to do with the abolition of special birth and another of equality under the law. Free movement is more about equality of outcome.

        1. How so? Freedom of movement is a right, in that it can’t be violated without active action to prevent its exercise. “Special birth” “equality under the law” and “equality if outcome” are totally irrelevant.

          1. You seem so hyper focused on your own point that you won’t try to understand what I’m getting at.

            You have no right of movement across my property without my permission any more than you have a right to take my property.

            1. Actuality I agree with you – I was trying to get you to state it.

              Your original comment mendoza borders, not property. Do you conflate the two?

              My point is that the state doesn’t have any place violating property rights (and neither do migrants), but that implies also that it doesn’t have any place violating the rights of citizens to openly invite migrants, if they so choose.

              What we have now is the state effectively inviting migrants, where none (or fewer) would otherwise arrive. But the state doesn’t have the right to exclude, on the same property rights grounds.

              1. Then I think we are in agreement.

                Your original comment mendoza borders, not property. Do you conflate the two?

                No. Just that property (well, real property) is often surrounded by a border. Crossing a border into someone’s land is metaphorical for using their property without permission.

                I seem to be having problems with my metaphors today. HazelMead accosted my upthread for missing my metaphor.

                1. =) I seem to be having problems with my auto-correct (mendoza = mentions??)

              2. America is for Americans. Not any random fucking foreigner that feels like wandering in. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

          2. The world is a big place. It is not a meaningful violation of your rights to say you can’t come here.

      2. However, I can imagine an argument that claims that equality of birth includes those born outside US borders and that equality under the law means that foreign born people are equally entitled to our entitlements. But that is not the argument that Richman made. And it’s one that I reject, nonetheless.

  14. Everything Richman says is correct. And yet he’s still an idiot on this subject.

    1. In the context of a massive welfare state, preventing non-tax-payers from entering is an act in protecting liberty (of tax payers). I.e. making the wrong of taxation even more wrong by forcing them to pay for all comers is not libertarian.

    2. The state is further sweetening the pot by actively providing accommodations to non-citizens (ports, roads, housing, schooling, etc.), effectively using state violence to create a problem where none need exist. Not libertarian.

    Richman’s points are all accurate, but he pretends he already lives in a libertarian “utopia” (so to speak), in which these issues just now have surfaced, to disturb an otherwise tranquil libertopia.

    Fix the anti-libertarian precedent issues, and I’m with him. Until then he’s just looney.

    1. 1. In the context of a massive welfare state, preventing non-tax-payers from entering is an act in protecting liberty (of tax payers). I.e. making the wrong of taxation even more wrong by forcing them to pay for all comers is not libertarian.

      I’ve always been amused by the ideological 3 Card Monty Rothbard and friends have used to maintain their an-cap bona fides while at the same time not threatening their fundraising efforts among the “peckerwood populist” crowd.

      1. This.
        The mental gymnastics is just as contorted as anything the R’s and D’s have to come up with to justify their own contradictions on economics and social issues.

        1. Wait, I can get funding for this?

          Anyway, I think you folks confuse logical argumentation with advocacy. I don’t advocate the use of state violence to protect taxpayers, but richman’s argument is still illogical within the context of a massive welfare-warfare state. Republicans are idiots, but within the context of the state (in which Richman argues) there are factors you can’t just ignore.

        2. Right, and your ideology requires a “New Man” to function correctly.

          Sorry, but Open Borders will not work, nor will it ever work on this planet until every single culture values liberty.

          There is no contradiction, it is a simple understanding of human nature that you seem to be extremely lacking.

          1. Which, as I said above, is why open borders purists reminds me so strongly of modern day communism apologists: their ideology requires people to be something other than what they are, yet they cling to it anyways and won’t budge an inch to their own detriment.

    2. How are they non-taxpayers?

      Half the people warning about the Social Security trust fund are arguing we need MORE immigrants to fund social security, not less.

      1. I’d wager a good 75 percent of people opining on immigration, regardless of their standpoint, have absolutely no clue as to how the system actually works.

        1. Yes. They think the legal immigration process is a simple matter of filling out the correct forms, and not a multi-year (sometimes decades long) kafkaesque nightmare which is virtually impossible for the vast majority of immigrants to pass. They probably don’t know what the word “kafkaesque” means so my words are lost on them.

          1. I am unclear on how illegal immigration fixes this problem. Illegals don’t pay social security taxes.

            1. They might. If they work under someone else’s number they do, and they get no benefit from those taxes either.

              1. Yeah……”might”. Sorry, that bullshit argument doesn’t cut it.

          2. One can be in favor of making legal immigration easier without wanting to make it easier to immigrate illegally. A former coworker of mine was working to become a nationalized US citizen. He was very much put out by illegal immigrants, and by amnesties for illegal immigration, because those things cheapen the very arduous process he was going through to demonstrate his desire and ability to become an American.

            Making legal immigration easier is substantively different: it recognizes that the process is unduly difficult and does something to address that problem, rather than just waving an ex post facto wand to pretend bad things never happened.

          3. I believe 10 years is current waiting period for LEGAL immigrants from China, just as an example. What’s really screwy is that the world is divided into ‘zones’ where each zone has a different quota of immigrants. This is for the sake of ‘diversity’.

      2. Relying on immigrants to fund social security is only a good idea if we expect to send them back before they retire, which has serious fairness/justice concerns. Otherwise it’s just another way to extend the life of the Ponzi scheme — and not even a very wise way to do that.

        1. This is the crucial point. It’s immoral to take their money without a clear understanding they won’t get anything back for it in the future. And if you assume they will get something back then you’ve made the situation worse. Low skilled workers get more back from SS than they pay in. Adding more into the system is a long term net loss.

          1. Low skilled workers get more back from SS than they pay in. Adding more into the system is a long term net loss.

            Agreed. Let’s get rid of SS and keep the hard working immigrants.

            1. Great! So which is more feasible: policing the borders and stopping even a slim majority of illegals from coming into the country or getting rid of Social Security?

      3. I think they’re talking about legal immigrants. I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here.

        Putting that aside, presumably they have never paid any taxes until they arrive, yet they’re “entitled” to benefits immediately. Major example: college at in-state tuition costs, when even US Nationals from other states don’t get that.

        1. Note that that used to be different. When I immigrated, legal immigrants were excluded from almost all government programs.

          1. When my sister-in-law immigrated – legal immigrants were excluded from almost all government programs.
            When her father immigrated, he had to have a sponsor – someone to *guarantee* that he’d have a job and a place to live, that he wasn’t going to be a burden on the system.

            Then came the whiny, entitled Criminal Trespassers. . . and we’ve all been on the hook for their crimes ever since.

            1. In fact, a fairly good reform of the immigration system would be to require people to either have a sponsor or carry “immigration insurance”, with something like a $500000 payment due if people either become a public charge or drop off the radar.

      4. Yeah, immigrants who are net taxpayers. Illegals are giant tax expenses.

      5. We need more educated immigrants.

      6. Legal immigrants are good. Illegal migrants are not.

    3. “Fix the anti-libertarian precedent issues, and I’m with him. Until then he’s just looney.”

      +1, Matt N.Your points pretty much encapsulates my thought on the issue. I hope you don’t mind me appropriating your comments for future use. 😉

    4. Fix the anti-libertarian precedent issues, and I’m with him. Until then he’s just looney.

      He’d be loon anywhere, at any time.

  15. Amen!

    Thanks to the staff for laying this out so well. You will certainly get overwhelming screams of outrage against this position from the my fellow commenters, but freedom of movement is third only to thought and self-defense when it comes to the most fundamental rights of any person.

    1. Not when it infringes on the rights of others. Not when freedom of movement trumps my right to property–for example.

      1. Not when it infringes on the rights of others. Not when freedom of movement trumps my right to property–for example.

        But it (the movement) doesn’t. Government isn’t adhering to libertarian principle and they are the ones depriving you of your property. Perhaps instead of blaming people exercising their right to seek a better position in life, you might consider placing blame where the blame actually lies.

        1. I suppose you’re against eminent domain, amirite? Does Trump Enterprises have a right to build access to its casino across your land because Right of Movement?

        2. Who owns the vast tracts of desert that most illegal immigrants cross? It does not take much effort to find instances where property owners have to clean up after human-smuggling convoys, or where they have been threatened by gang-backed smugglers. If the federal government tried to adhere to libertarian principle and let private citizens own more of the land near the Mexican border, trespass on private lands would be that much more common in the course of illegal immigration.

          1. No one is claiming that anyone has the right to trespass on private property.

            The funny part is, that it’s the criminalization of drugs and immigration that push people to trespass on private land. If it wasn’t criminal they’d be using the public thoroughfare.

            As usual, it is government causing the problem by doing shit that the government ought not be doing.

            1. No one is claiming that anyone has the right to trespass on private property.

              Sorry, but we as Americans own America. That’s what citizenship is.

              1. Is there a point in there somewhere?

                I, as a citizen, am all for bettering everyone’s situation by allowing productive individuals to add value to the free market economy.

                MOAR productive people pleez!

                1. Ok. How about more doctors and engineers first?

                  1. Why? I have doctors and engineers. What I need is people who’ll pick vegetables and clean hotel rooms.

                    How bout we let the free market meet demand?

            2. one can trespass on public property too. Just try to have a party in a public park after hours.
              crossing the border without permission Is trespassing. it’s against the law of our nation,and rightfully so. Forging documents to get a job or rent a house or apartment is a crime.

              1. Are you showing up at a libertarian site for the first time and using “because it’s the law” as an argument?

                Lurk more, my friend.

                Some Many Most laws in this country don’t adhere to libertarian principle and are therefore immoral. We are well aware of what the law IS. Sounds like you should attempt to learn what the laws SHOULD BE.

                1. “Should be” is great until it passes into the realm of, “based I everything I know about the world, won’t be, no matter how badly I want it.”

        3. Sure, the government which is empowered by the people that vote for it, and those same immigrants by and large tend to vote for more power for said government.

          I, for one, don’t blame government for anything, I blame the assholes who actively want the government to act in the way it does, and sorry, but most immigrants we have been getting lately fall into that category, and I nor anyone else can be bothered to vet each and every one of them, so fuck em all, they have plenty of freedom of movement already, hell, they can even visit any time they want to pay for it.

  16. What is Iran’s immigration policy, I wonder

      1. It’s actually quite instructive to compare the map in the article with that of Fortress America.

        1. Is that second map telling me that Canada is part of Fortress America?

          If so, I want a different name AND shade of blue.

          1. It is a (very) different shade of blue. Look at your monitor’s gamma, bro.

            1. Yes, but I don’t like it.

              I like midnight blue.

              Look, if we’re gonna form a FA you must respect the wishes of your partners.

              Midnight blue.

          2. All right, we’ll give some land to the niggers Muslims and the chinks Messikens, but we don’t want the IRISH CANADIANS.

        2. Anyone else notice that the map of “Fortress America” basically looks like the Free World?

      2. So Iran is buddies with Venezuela and Bolivia? That’s interesting.

        1. So Iran is buddies with Venezuela and Bolivia? That’s interesting.

          Chavez’s work, though I would assume there are some arcane OPEC politics involved as well.

          1. It’s almost some kind of “axis” or something.

          2. the only reason Iran is involved in South America is for anti-American activities. Note that a missile base in Venezuela would put Iranian IRBMs in range of the southern US.

      3. That is a tourist visa. Not immigration. not a work permit.

        1. Yeah, really stupid mistake.

    1. Who the fuck immigrates to Iran? I doubt they have a problem with illegals there.

      1. Which is the relevant point.

        I’m not surprised that the mullahs would welcome more slaves.

        1. And they weed out the……..undesirables……..pretty decisively.

  17. something tells me if Israelis were fleeing across the U.S. Border illegally Richman would be manning the guard towers himself.

    Hey reason, you want money from me at your next fundraiser? Then stop carrying articles from clowns like Richman.

    1. Um, Sheldon is Jewish, dude.

      That said, he’s way off with this piece.

      1. Um, Sheldon is Jewish, dude.

        He has a long history of anti-Israel articles.

      2. He still hates him some Joos.

        1. I suppose it makes sense.

          Israel is a bunch of Jews saying “we need our own state to protect ourselves”. Naturally, consciously *choosing* to form a government is anathema to Mr. Anarchist.

  18. “One cannot consistently praise the principle, central to the supposedly beloved Declaration of Independence, that “all men [that is, persons, not only Americans] are created equal” while also demanding that the government control some people’s freedom to move.”

    Deciding who can or can’t come across our borders is fundamental to the idea of sovereignty.

    Whether we should let more people across or give people from certain countries (like Canada and Mexico) the ability to freely come across our borders by treaty* and whether we have the right to determine who can and can’t come across our borders are two separate questions. The right to determine who can come across the border is fundamental to sovereignty–our decision to rule ourselves free from outside influence.

    *The treaty might require certain things: that immigrants have a reliable means of identification, can prove vaccination against certain diseases, aren’t obviously carrying a communicable disease, aren’t convicted felons, etc. The idea that because all men are created equal, we have to let people with active communicable diseases across our borders, convicted felons across, and others who might do us harm is ridiculous. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and if that requires the government to screen out those who would do us harm–because they would harm our rights–then that is what the government should do.

    1. Ken, I agree with you in theory wrt to national sovereignty but at some point the government gets so bad you just have to say to hell with it and side with the lawbreakers. I don’t think open-borders is the best of all possible worlds but I prefer it to a government that wants to control the borders the way Trump and everybody else wants to – walls work both ways and some day I may want to get the hell out of here – and I can protect myself from a few foreign-born evil-doers better than I can my own government. At this point, anything whatsoever that adds to the power of government no matter how fine and noble the idea is to be resisted in my book. I wouldn’t trust them with the power to give a crust of bread to a starving orphan.

      1. “I don’t think open-borders is the best of all possible worlds but I prefer it to a government that wants to control the borders”

        What I’m advocating, here, is open borders–it’s just open borders within the confines of a treaty. The treaty has certain stipulations to screen out those who would do us harm.

        Open borders doesn’t mean foreign governments can march their troops across our borders, and it doesn’t mean we have to let convicted felons, those with communicable diseases, et. al. who threaten our rights across our borders either.

        I’m talking about making it easier for Mexicans to come across the border at a regular border crossing to look for work and live here. The stipulations I’m talking about are about getting rid of the walls we have–so that good people can come back and forth across the border freely, and the only ones sneaking through the deserts at night are those who mean us harm.

        1. Thanks Ken, I agree completely with your point. Nice to see someone actually being logical rather than emote about liberties that only exist on planet libertopia. The real world exists, human nature is a thing.

        1. Busted by Government Almighty for feeding the poor? I have a fix for you: Put your stacks of freshly-made sandwiches in a clean zip-lock, approach poor person, explain to him/her that you have more than you can eat, and you are going to dump this in the nearby trash can (or close to it, if you “see” the trash can as being over-flowing). Tell him or her that he/she can “dumpster dive” at will. You are NOT feeding the poor w/o Government Almighty license! You are disposing of your trash, like a good citizen! (Creativity is needed, at times, to thwart evil pigs).

    2. A million people crossing the border with automatic weapons is not an invasion, it’s a libertarian migration.

  19. “One also cannot claim to be a champion of liberty and limited power while calling for measures to prevent people without papers from finding work or making a home in the United States.”

    This is correct–but you’re looking at it from the wrong side of the equation. Punishing free people for hiring illegal aliens is incompatible with freedom of association, among other things.

    Trying to punish single mothers for hiring illegal immigrants for child care, working moms for hiring illegal immigrants to do house cleaning, punishing the elderly on fixed incomes for hiring illegal immigrants for lawn care, etc. That’s just plain wrong.

    I don’t owe people welfare. Being forced to pay for it is bad enough by itself–it shouldn’t mean I have to give up my freedom of association, too.

  20. Immigrants are not a net burden on the “welfare state”. First, they are banned from receiving direct government assistance until they become permanent residents. Second, they are net contributors to Social Security and Medicare – to the extent that many people argue in FAVOR of more immigration in order to increase the number of workers per retiree. If anything, more immigration is currently helping keep the welfare state going, because it provides more workers to tax.

    1. I appreciate what you’re saying, and I’m not in favor of any immigration policy because of welfare. I see welfare as a separate issue–and I think it should be cut for the native born and immigrants alike.

      But a lot of the stats we see are cut in such a way that they’re deceiving. When we talk about “welfare”, are we just talking about rent credits and EBT cards? Because most people are talking about immigrants being a disproportionate burden on the taxpayer–in whatever form. How about what the children of immigrants cost taxpayers through public schools? You mentioned Medicare and Social Security–what about how much immigrants and their children cost taxpayers through Medicaid?

      Another thing I see, sometimes, is they’ll talk about these costs on a per capita basis. If the children of immigrants don’t cost more than native born children from the same socioeconomic background, that isn’t really informative if immigrants are having twice as many children as the native born.

      1. Again, only legal immigrants are eligible for medicaid.

        The only valid one is public schooling, and I really doubt that outweighs the contribution to Social Security and Medicare.

        1. What about the children of illegal immigrants? Aren’t they eligible for Medicaid?

          “Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health coverage to more than 43 million children, including half of all low-income children in the United States.”

          https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program- information/by-population/children/children.html

          As far as the cost to public schools, if you took out all the kids of all the illegal immigrants going back a few generations, you’d have a lot less people in California.

          Three generations of millions of immigrants, each with a birthrate at 3.5, rather than the 1.7 average for U.S. born. You’re going to send all three generations to public schools for 12 years–and you don’t think that’s a burden on the taxpayer?

          I don’t see any good reason to pretend they aren’t a burden on the taxpayer.

          1. What about the children of illegal immigrants? Aren’t they eligible for Medicaid?

            What about the children of people on Medicaid? Are they eligible for Medicaid?
            What difference does it make if the new moth to feed is born to a US citizen or an illegal alien?

            1. In terms of absolute cost?

              Some of it depends on how many children they have. If illegal immigrants and their descendants have twice as many children as average Americans, then in terms of absolute cost, the costs will grow geometrically higher than they would without illegal immigrants and their descendants.

              Also, you’re talking about taking people who can’t qualify for services as illegal aliens but who could qualify if you made them legal residents.

        2. Or how about that schools aren’t a legitimate function of government in the first place? Public schools ARE welfare.

          This is just a rehash of the gay marriage argument around here.

          Government doing what government ought not be doing is an excuse to deprive certain groups of their liberties because “granting” said liberty will cause something else bad to happen.

          Address the real problem, which is government.

          1. Anarchists are for open borders, because they don’t want any borders.

        3. And public schools are mostly funded through property taxes, which immigrants okay just like everybody else, so…

          1. “Okay” = “pay”, thanks autocorrect.

          2. You think immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren pay property taxes in places like LA County or Orange County commensurate with the burden they place on the school district?

            I think that is highly unlikely.

            Also, in California anyway, the state provides a minimum level of funding. In short, about 40% of California’s state budget has to be spent on elementary, jr. high, high schools, and community colleges.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ California_Proposition_98_(1988)

            1. You think immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren pay property taxes in places like LA County or Orange County commensurate with the burden they place on the school district?

              Do non immigrants?

              In a “fair” world, each individual would pay for the education they were provided.

              The system we are stuck with is one where everyone pays for the school system based upon the amount of property they use. The system is more fair than other tax burdens, but certainly isn’t fair in that you get what you pay for.

              The one thing you CAN’T say, however, is that immigrants are any different than the poors wrt having their education paid for by the wealthy.

              1. Exactly. Why are we assuming that the children and grandchildren of immigrants are any more of a burden than the children and grandchildren of people who already live here?

                1. “Why are we assuming that the children and grandchildren of immigrants are any more of a burden than the children and grandchildren of people who already live here?”

                  We’re talking about bringing more people here, aren’t we?

                  In terms of cost, why wouldn’t we consider the consequences of bringing more of them here and making them legal?

                  If I tell you, that making illegal aliens legal residents will have an impact on the cost of Medicaid, do you see what’s wrong with you countering that they won’t be able to qualify for Medicaid because they aren’t legal residents?

              2. Ignoring the disproportionate share of the tax burden they represent is unreasonable if you’re replying to people whose concerns are about the tax burden.

                And as I linked above, by Prop 98, 40% of the State of California’s budget must be spent on elementary, junior high, high school, and community college. It is not just property tax. It’s every form of taxation.

                In addition to that, the idea that it’s okay to squander more money on more people because we already squander less money on other people doesn’t make sense.

                1. As usual, Ken, you are missing the point. Your problem is with government, not immigrants. Fix the immoral welfare state and there are no immigration issues.

                  1. “As usual, Ken, you are missing the point. Your problem is with government, not immigrants. Fix the immoral welfare state and there are no immigration issues.”

                    As usual, FdA, your orthodoxy and myopia has blinded you to the facts.

                    What makes you think I have a problem with immigrants?

                    Here are a few quotes from earlier in the thread by yours truly:

                    1) “What I’m advocating, here, is open borders–it’s just open borders within the confines of a treaty. The treaty has certain stipulations to screen out those who would do us harm.

                    . . . .

                    I’m talking about making it easier for Mexicans to come across the border at a regular border crossing to look for work and live here. The stipulations I’m talking about are about getting rid of the walls we have–so that good people can come back and forth across the border freely, and the only ones sneaking through the deserts at night are those who mean us harm.”

                    2) “I’m not in favor of any immigration policy because of welfare. I see welfare as a separate issue–and I think it should be cut for the native born and immigrants alike.”

                    1. 3) “My solution to the EBT problem is to cut the program for everyone. My solution for the cost of rent subsidies is to slash them–for immigrants and the native born alike. Being an American citizen shouldn’t entitle you to free rent and free food. My solution to the cost of public schooling–for native born children and otherwise–is to privatize the school system as much as possible. Let’s get rid of Medicaid. Let’s get rid of Social Security. There isn’t any good reason to tie these issues to immigration.”

                      ———————–

                      Just because I favor open borders doesn’t mean I have to pretend I’m stupid about costs.

              3. Anarchism or bust!

          3. Every illegal alien child is entitled to a public school education and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

            Illegals are definitely not paying taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds.

            Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year.

            If you assume that 30% of the cost of rent goes to indirectly pay property tax, each illegal alien parent will have to pay out $35,000 in annual rent to break even with the taxpayer. I can assure you that this is not happening.

            1. It doesn’t happen with native born children either.

              1. Actually, it does happen with native born children.

                You see, money that the govt spends must be obtained from taxpayers, either in the past, now or in the future.

                So, I can tell you with certainty that native-born taxpayers do pay their way.

                But, I can also tell you, illegals do not.

                1. So, I can tell you with certainty that native-born taxpayers do pay their way.

                  HAHAHAHAHA!

                  Nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax. Are they paying their way or are the wealthy paying their way for them?

            2. Every illegal alien child is entitled to a public school education and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

              Illegals The poors are definitely not paying taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds.

              Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year.

              If you assume that 30% of the cost of rent goes to indirectly pay property tax, each illegal alien poor parent will have to pay out $35,000 in annual rent to break even with the taxpayer. I can assure you that this is not happening.

              The system sucks. Illegal immigration has nothing to do with it. Of the $4k I spend each year in property taxes, $2200 goes to schools. I have no children…

              Using a horrid system as an excuse to infringe upon rights because it will make a horrid system worse is absurd. How bout we get rid of the horrid system and infringe upon no one’s rights instead?

            3. “Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year.”

              The standard story has it that, right now, if it weren’t for immigrants, the United States would be experiencing negative population growth. Native born Americans simply aren’t having enough children to take us above replacement level.

              The birth rate among immigrants was about twice the birth rate of native born Americans last I checked–so why bother talking about cost per child if they’re having twice as many children? There are twice as many of them! It isn’t about relative cost per capita. It’s about absolute cost per taxpayer.

              Also, it isn’t just how much the immigrants are paying in taxes. It’s also how many children they’re having.

              The average American born woman gets married later in life, starts a career, has 1.7 children when she’s older, and that’s half as many children as immigrants from Latin America have. I think we should let them in anyway–the solution is to privatizes the schools, etc. But there is no good reason to pretend they aren’t a burden on the taxpayer.

              1. Most arguments are like that. The people who disagree with you have some points of their own, and just because you acknowledge they’re right about one thing doesn’t mean you have to come to the same conclusions they do. Certainly, ‘We should take down the teachers’ unions because restricting immigration is impossibly difficult’ is just as good an argument as “We should restrict immigration becasue taking on the teachers’ unions is impossibly difficult”.

        4. Only immigrants with “false” SS numbers are contributing to SS/Medicare – essentially, their employers are contributing (most are relatively low-wage and given current tax structure easy to have employee contribution negated via EIC).

          Those with “false” SS numbers are legal for all intents and purposes and qualify for a myriad of benefits.

        5. Financially, but it would always be a good idea to allow public schooling of illegals. However, it’s ridiculous to bend over backward to accommodate language barriers. They (the kids) should also be learning English. Yes, at taxpayer expense, but it’s better for everyone than having them grow up poor and uneducated (and criminal) in a country unwilling to enforce its own laws.

    2. My solution to the EBT problem is to cut the program for everyone. My solution for the cost of rent subsidies is to slash them–for immigrants and the native born alike. Being an American citizen shouldn’t entitle you to free rent and free food. My solution to the cost of public schooling–for native born children and otherwise–is to privatize the school system as much as possible. Let’s get rid of Medicaid. Let’s get rid of Social Security. There isn’t any good reason to tie these issues to immigration.

      But there isn’t a good reason to pretend poor immigrants aren’t a burden on the tax payer–if that’s what they are–either.

    3. You refer to legal immigrants with work permits.

      If we are going increase the number of legal immigrants, why on earth would we choose unskilled labor?

      1. Because otherwise we’d be evil and icky.

      2. Because not giving to the needy is taking from them, just like not giving all our money to the government in taxes is the same as stealing. Duh!

    4. This may be true of legal immigrants, who Reason willfully conflates with illegals. However, many illegals work completely off the books and don’t pay any taxes whatsoever, thus giving them a 20% advantage over a US citizen or legal immigrant.

      There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

      Illegals are definitely not paying taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds.

      1. And they’ll be on Medicaid for those years, add in another $2500 per year, so 3 kids times $126K + 3 times $2500 times 18 (and many of them will be life-long Medicaid enrollees)… 135000… you’re talking over half a million dollars for a low earning group. Want to try to do the math on how many years they’d have to work for at a household income of $36,000 to pay that, with a 50% chance of not paying taxes at all?

        And we haven’t even gotten to the other forms of welfare they’d use in that time

        1. Sounds like you’re using welfare as an excuse to violate people’s rights. Wouldn’t it be better to to fix welfare and not violate people’s rights?

          1. People have a fundamental right to move to any country they choose?

            LOL.

            You think that there is 1 chance in a million that we are going to get rid of welfare?

            Double LOL.

            1. Yes, to both.

              Perhaps you’re not quite familiar with the concept of natural rights?

    5. Immigrants are not a net burden on the “welfare state”

      when you start off by writing “immigrants” instead of some version of “illegal aliens,” you’re exposing yourself as a dishonest hack, at best.

      1. When you’re convinced everyone who disagrees with you is an evil racist, that sort of dishonesty doesn’t phase you.

    6. go to any hospital emergency room,and it’s full of illegals. Wait times are several hours. That’s billions of dollars every year,and it also means OUR citizens can’t get timely medical treatment. they are using our healthcare without paying for it. Then there’s their crime,that costs us further billions every year.
      So don’t try to tell me illegals aren’t any burden on “the welfare state”. I’m NOT buying it,it’s BS.

      Their “contributions” don’t measure up to those expenses.

      1. Sounds like you want to get rid of the welfare state.

        1. Yes, FdA, you bring us libertopia, I’ll support your Open Borders. Until then, try to stop pontificating on it because it makes you feel morally superior.

    7. You keep conflating immigrants and illegals.

      Furthermore, whether they have been a net benefit in the just is irrelevant to whether they will be in the future under the new open borders rules you seem to envision.

      In any case, we are not debating utility but morality and legality of excluding people from the US, and, yes, doing so is both legal and moral, even for a libertarian

  21. Immigration reform is necessary because of inadequate immigration policy and execution. It will help boost the economy.

    Secure the border, expand guest-worker programs, increase work visas, give illegal immigrants that are already here legal status (Green Card) if they pass a background check and then send them to the back of the line to apply for citizenship.

    Solution for border security:

    Base all border agents’ and their superiors’ pay raises and bonuses on illegal immigration numbers.

    Track visas so people don’t overstay their visas.

    Decriminalize drugs. It’ll remove the problem of drug smugglers crossing the border illegally, lessen the danger to border security and residents of border towns.

    Government should have to verify legal status of those to whom they issue licenses, welfare and voter registration.

    Require the government to e-verify when an employer files an I-9 for an employee, not the employer; put the legal responsibility on the government if they get it wrong not on business.

    Increase work visas to match the demand by U.S businesses.

    Together all this will mean fewer people crossing the border illegally making it easier for border security to catch those who do cross illegally.

    1. Solution for border security

      Liberty?

    2. Immigration reform is necessary because of inadequate immigration policy and execution.

      Indeed. We don’t execute nearly enough of our immigrants!

    3. Decriminalizating drugs does nothing to stop drug smuggling. Only legalization would do that. That may be what you meant, but when polititions talk decriminalization they mean we’re not going to arrest you for doing drugs but they are still illegal to manufacture and sell. Of course legalization would drastically reduce immigration from our southern border as much of it is fueled from trying to escape cartel violence.

    4. Solution for border security

      I can tell you how to fix that one on the cheap, and get rid of government involvement altogether.

      Simply declare anyone in the country illegally is ineligible for protection under US law. Then let the citizenry, as a free people, deal with the issue however they see fit.

      1. That’s pretty much how they do things in Ol’ Meheeko. . .

    5. If a business hires an illegal. . .

      $10,000 fine per head. Business is seized and sold at public auction.

      If a person rents to illegals. . .

      $10,000 fine per head. House or apartment complex is seized and sold at public auction.

      Criminal Trespassing evaporates overnight.

  22. All right, time to take on some illegal aliens in X-COM 2.

    See you on the flip side.

  23. Oh lord, a Richman thread about immigration.

    ARE YOU READY GUYS?

    Honestly, even if Richman wrote an article that I completely agree with 100% I would probably still dislike it because he writes like such a profound, dishonest idiot. He just throws up random assertions and declares them to be obvious rather than provide any substantial evidence, then declares his position to be THE ONE TRUE MORALITY and sneers at anyone who disagrees. Oh, and don’t forget the random contextless quotes from *insert 19th century libertarianish person here*, because it’s the only time he’s able to have a decent argument. He then proceeds to be an utter hypocrite whenever he needs to declare himself the superior moralist in some modern conflict, going from ‘nationalism is stupid’ and ‘what United States government tells you isn’t true’ to ‘Palestinian nationalism is totally acceptable’ and ‘anything Iran tells you is the absolute truth’.

    1. Why would this article be any different? Richman argues for a more open border policy, some of which I support (refugees are an independent issue for me) but proceeds to discuss it in such a moronic, self-contradictory fashion, especially in the context of a ton of other stuff he’s written. “The United States border is just an imaginary, illegitimate line because sovereign isn’t a thing. Now read these quotes from Libertarian saints. Please ignore all the other times I actually believe sovereignty is real, like anything involving foreign nations and U.S. policy. Now, if Russia wants to expand its own imaginary line, well that’s just a product of U.S. aggression and *blathers on into more apologia*”

    2. That is HM-quality YouTubery right there.

  24. The best solution is to make it much easier to immigrate or get work visas. Sign them up and let them in. I would prefer to tax them like they tax me though.

    Some sort of amnesty that required the illegals to figuratively “go back through the line” would also be part of the deal.

    1. The back of the line starts outside the country.

    2. I would prefer to stick a gun up their nose and rob them them like they stick guns up my nose and rob me me though.

      Yeah. . . that makes a lot of sense – NOT!

  25. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

    http://www.Wage90.com

  26. So if all people are created equal, why should some have to carry government papers just because they were born on the other side of an arbitrary line on a map?

    Arbitrary? arbitrary? I like that word! It lets you know when you’re dealing with a dishonest jackass!

    Exactly which of these other concepts Richmon speaks of, such as “justice” and “rights”, are not as equally arbitrary as that line on a map? Are they inscribed on a stone tablet from on high somewhere?

    And even if you accept the proposition “all people are created equal” (I certainly don’t!), does that mean you’re equally obligated to all of them? Are your just as obligated to care for my wife and children as you are to care for your wife and children?

    1. Of course he’s obligated. . . and if you don’t let your wife fuck him, you’re SEXIST!!11!!ONEONEONE

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-yaGzOO-Dw

  27. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:


    Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

    Quote:
    About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

    1. I think the fact that close to half of all natives are on welfare is the bigger story.

      1. It might be if it were true. But it isn’t.

        1. Oh, well in that case, carry on.

    2. 403 Forbidden. Sounds intriguing.

      1. I think there’s a movie is coming out based on this.

    3. Yes you can. Lots of countries around the world do. There is no correlation between immigration and welfarism.

      1. Name one,

        1. I meant to say there are countries with welfare and lots of immigration, not open borders. Oops.

          There are no countries with open borders.

          1. There is a huge difference between “lots of immigration” and “open borders.”

            I invite many people over to my house. I do not leave my doors unlocked.

            1. ^This


  28. Collect more than $7,000 per month for ‘fostering’ adult illegal aliens

    The federal government is in dire need of U.S. citizens willing to house the thousands of illegal immigrants who enter the country each week, and they are willing to pay them to do so.
    ?
    Braiser mentioned that foster families will be paid $40 per day for each migrant they take in from Catholic Charities? Foster parents have the ability to collect more than $7,400 per month, considering that they can house six immigrants at any given time.

    1. More SF’ds.

  29. Amnesty is like the Adam Lanza of immigration policy IMMA RITE GUYZ

  30. By the way, before someone crosses into the United States from Mexico or Canada, he is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. So can that person actually violate a congressional statute?

    Yes, in many cases, illegals broke the law against visa fraud.

    Also, you’re an asshole

  31. Richman accurately represents the clerico libertarian position of Reason.

    Thou shalt not coerce. Government is coercion. Government borders are coercion. Therefore bad.

    You might wish to be defended from government coercion. You have every right to hold up in your House with a gun and defend yourself.

    But you are Da Debil if you want a government to do this for you, and you are Da Debil if you want to the government to prevent people who would take the freedoms you have from joining the polity that controls the government with power over you.

    Thou shalt not coerce.

    When they finally come for you, Richman will stand up for your right to defend yourself. All *true* libertarians will protest.

    Be consoled – you will die *pure* and mourned by the faithful.

    Hallelujah!

    1. Richman accurately represents the clerico libertarian position of Reason. Thou shalt not coerce. Government is coercion. Government borders are coercion. Therefore bad.

      I have no idea what that means, but the argument doesn’t work.

      Admitting people into the US results in additional government coercion of citizens: people are coerced to do business with new immigrants, make sure they are covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, pay for their schools, pay for their roads, and pay for increased government services.

      The argument that, on average, immigrants (legal or illegal) contribute more to the economy than they take out (whether true or not) doesn’t change that: existing US citizens are still compelled to associate with, and insure, all immigrants, not just the ones that make a positive contribution.

      1. “Admitting people into the US results in additional government coercion of citizens”

        That’s the government’s fault, not your fault. You are still pure until you support government coercive power. And purity is what matters.

      2. As of not-too-many-years ago, Criminal Trespassers cost California taxpayers approximately $10,000,000,000.

        $13Bn in taxes paid – $23Bn in additional public services = $10Bn net loss.

  32. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

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

  33. Apparently, if Richman doesn’t like a law, it is “simply “legislation,” or worse, an “unjust law.” I’m not certain what is unjust about requiring a non-citizen to have the proper documentation to enter this country. Perhaps Richman can explain that reason (no pun intended), or does he get to decide which laws are just or unjust on his own? If you are an “undocumented” alien, you are here illegally. If you are in violation of the law, you are therefore a lawbreaker. It is a concept not that difficult to understand.

      1. You’re lighting the MIchael Hihn lantern, now. But in this thread I’m beginning to see his point.

      2. there are plenty of good reasons for laws,and also for secure borders.
        Libertarians are naive and clueless.

          1. In this case, some libertarians are confused. A libertarian might say that government has no right to limit immigration in a libertarian society. But in a libertarian society, individuals wouldn’t be taxed, or forced to pay for socialized costs, or forced to do business or associate with anybody.

            But we don’t live in a libertarian society. Admitting people willy nilly into the country imposes costs and legal obligations on the rest of society through government force. And that’s why existing citizens have a say in who does and doesn’t get admitted.

            There is nothing inconsistent or unprincipled about a libertarian opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants, or even opposing immigration at all under our current, non-libertarian form of government.

        1. Liberals are naive and clueless.

          FIFY

  34. Congratulations, Mr. Richman.

    Nations have no right to control their own immigration?

    This is the dumbest argument on the internet today. You’ve won.

    1. “Nations have no right to control their own immigration?”

      You gotta remember, he’s not a collectivist and doesn’t recognize that entities like ‘nations’ have rights. Individuals, yes. They have rights but not nations, states, ethnic, sexual identities etc.

      1. But property owners have rights. In a libertarian world, “countries” would be replaced by (much smaller) associations of private property owners, and they would also have immigration rules, likely much stricter than what the US as a whole has.

        We’re not in a libertarian world, we’re living in a world in which the entire US is effectively the shared property of all of its citizens, people who pay for its upkeep through their taxes, and who have a legitimate say in who may enter and who may not.

  35. “an immigrant without papers has done nothing wrong”. what a FOOL.
    just crossing the border and entering the US without our permission is a crime. it’s illegal entry.
    then there’s the forged papers they use to obtain work and services.

    1. Yes illegal entry is a crime, and so is speeding and jaywalking.

      The question is not whether they have broken the law (they have), the question is whether they have done something *wrong* (they haven’t).

      1. The question is not whether they have broken the law (they have), the question is whether they have done something *wrong* (they haven’t).

        Of course, they have “done something wrong”. A country is, effectively, the shared property of its citizens, and people who come to the US are trespassing and squatting, just like someone might do on private property.

        1. Precisely!

          Some day, I hope that even ONE Criminal Trespasser Apologist wakes the hell up and realizes this.

        2. “A country is, effectively, the shared property of its citizens…” That’s the very definition of socialism !

  36. “To be sure, the immigrant without papers acted contrary to a statute, a decree promulgated by a legislative body. But law is another matter”

    statute [stach-oot, -oo t] noun 1. Law.
    Take it up with dictionary.com or Black’s Law Dictionary.

    Nice idea of selective law, but I don’t think anyone is going to start a movement, bring it as an issue in a Presidential debate should one decide to make a few machine guns “without papers” just because they wanted to have some fun at the local range.

    Perhaps people like the author should use their time and money to move to some these countries and work to it a better place. The available land mass and economic math does not support the majority of the planet moving to the US.
    As an after thought, San Bernardino comes to mind.

  37. The border needs to be secured and Mexico needs to secure their own southern border, especially with the instability in South America. Immigration has always been an economic issue, but now it’s also a health and national security issue.

  38. invaders deserve only one type of justice….and their collaborators in journalism and in washington DC deserve the same type of justice.

  39. Granting “amnesty” supposes that a wrong was committed. But an immigrant without papers has done nothing wrong.

    Immigrant here. And let me say: bullshit.

    I’ve lived and worked in half a dozen countries around the world, and I always viewed myself as a guest of the people of the country where I was living. Moving to a country in violating of its immigration rules is roughly the equivalent of squatting in someone’s yard or house without their permission. Of course it’s wrong.

  40. “You gotta remember, he’s not a collectivist and doesn’t recognize that entities like ‘nations’ have rights. Individuals, yes.”

    Good point … as I understand things, “we the people”, as a collection of individuals with inalienable rights, have formed a nation governed by laws. And we are willing to enforce the law.

    So unless the author (Richman) can get the constitution ammended by vote, he as a citizen has agreed, albiet probably implicitly, to uphold these laws.

    His argument is just an exercise in free speech by a US citizen.

    If not, then he should renounce his US citizenship, leave the country, and re-enter without paperwork as an “illegal world citizen”, to make his point meaningful.

  41. “Sheldon Richman plays semantics with the terms ‘amnesty’ and ‘law’, none of which won’t hold in any court”

    That about sums it up.

    Sheldon – if you’re here without papers, you most certainly broke some laws. There’s an entire body of government that exists to issue those “papers” and mandates that immigrants get them. Even Obama knows this, because he’s sent back a gazillion people who caught near the border.

    This sin’t the 1770, no one has a “natural right” to move to places at his whim. This is among the silliest argument radical libertarians make. Under this fantasy America could effectively “occupy” Mexico within 3 years and take advantage of their low labor costs and cheap real estate without ever toppling their government.

  42. When editors start employing “undocumented journalists” to write those articles and opinion pieces that Americans “just won’t write” you will see a lot of squealing from those same native journalists. It all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

  43. Most ridiculous article I have read in while

    1. Well, it is Sheldon Richman.

  44. So. . . Trespassing is “nothing wrong,” eh?

    Good to know – give me your address – I want to come jump the fence into your back yard, set up a tent, and – oh, by the way – you get to buy all of my food, pay for my healthcare, buy me a car (with gold badges and 22-inch wheels, of course), re-stock my wardrobe, buy me a 4k TV (Samsung 85″ class). . . I’m sure I’ll think of more things that you have to buy me because I live in your yard. . . .
    One more thing – if you try to kick me out – I’ll collect all my friend who are living in other peoples’ back yards, and we’ll picket and protest and demand that what we’ve done be made retroactively legal – because *reasons*, man!

  45. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

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

  46. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

    1. You should apply for a job at Reason.

  47. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  48. Actually, Sheldon, amnesty does not imply a wrong committed; it implies a law broken, and amnesty implies abdication of the right to prosecute such a legal violation. Whether right or wrong, illegal immigration is against the law, and therefore, amnesty is, in fact the issue.

  49. This is retarded Sheldon. Sorry. Suggesting that ANY law restricting immigration is prima facie unjust is simply naive. The Declaration went on to evoke the social contract after the natural rights discussion, saying in multiple places the government’s role was to preserve natural rights for “ourselves”. Not the world’s population. Youre making the same mistake neocons do when they think we should go around preserving the natural rights of foreign populations by deposing their governments. Preamble of the Constitution also makes clear that the following applied to their “progeny”. Not “humankind”. The visceral nature in which you approach the issue suggests maybe that your a little too emotional to discuss it rationally. Maybe you should calm the fuck down and stop calling everyone a hypocrite for desiring some marginal restrictions on the amount of people we let in at any given time. AKA a system every nation state in the history of humanity has deemed necessary to some extent. Everyone who ever lived on Earth sucks except for Sheldon apparently. Get the fuck over yourself dude.

  50. If I drive a car without a license, I’m not an ‘undocumented driver’, I’m driving illegally. Don’t like US immigration laws? That’s fine. But lets not throw out the rule of law.

  51. Seriously? Try going across the southern border into Mexico illegally. You will land in prison for 5 years. I love how people who live far from the border and are not impacted by the dramatic costs associated with education and healthcare for illegal immigrants are so open and understanding. Why they come is not to seek the American dream, but to escape the corruption and drug violence in Mexico. The Mexican government is the most corrupt in the western hemisphere and until the US acknowledges and addresses this fact, no wall, fence, number of troops or any other proposal will stop the flood into the US. They do not come for a better life, but just to stay alive. However, please dont pretend they have done nothing wrong and they have no impact on the country economically or otherwise.

  52. It is one thing to say that, centuries ago, people were free to go live and work wherever they chose. Today is different. We now have a variety of taxes, immunization, and such as well as terrorist threats to the citizens of this country. So the theoretical arguments are nice for academics but not practical in reality. Why am I paying taxes to assist unemployed while the government is letting illegals cross our borders and take jobs creating more unemployed citizens? If we have no taxes we have no society and no country. Make your own decision.

  53. BS!!! By coming here ILLEGALLY it’s a FEDERAL OFFENSE. Which is breaking a FEDERAL LAW. They do do something wrong. They should be immediately DEPORTED. They are ILLEGAL aliens. If they did nothing wrong they would have visas or citizenship!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.