Election 2016

Ted Cruz on Illegals: "Yes, We Should Deport Them…Of Course You Would, That's What ICE Exists For"

Is this really something that libertarians can or should get behind?

|

I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump. Trump is a self-evident authoritarian, right? Cruz, such folks say, may not be at all libertarian but at least he's a "constitutionalist" and thus recognizes limits on the size, scope, and spending of government.

Well, I guess. He is also on the record emphatically supporting the rounding up and deporting of all illegal immigrants—12 million in his count—currently in the United States. He's even proud to point out that unlike Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, he would not only round up the illegals but ban them forever from becoming U.S. citizens. "The biggest difference," Cruz told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly last month (see above), "between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and myself is that both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio would allow those 12 million people to become U.S. citizens….I will not."

Does anyone believe this would not be massively disruptive, not just to illegals (including their often-fully legal children) but to tens of millions more law-abiding citizens and aliens? Cruz's blind insistence that you have to follow the law as written calls to mind discussions between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 12 as well as the role of Captain Vere in Billy Budd, to cite two well-known examples of sacrificing what is good or wise for what is technically legal.

In other instances, Cruz is fine with either challenging the law or celebrating those who disobey it. And this for me is where the senator's—or anyone's, really—insistence that we must do this or that because it is the law breaks down. Just as all politicians are fair-weather federalists (if even), all go back and forth on whether we should follow or maintain this or that law based on the actual law in question.

Cruz notoriously defended Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses once same-sex marriage was legalized. Davis did not just refuse to do her job out of a misplaced sense of conscience, she refused to allow any marriage licenses be issued under her watch. Oh, but that was just the Supreme Court overruling elected legislators, right? Well, it's still the law. The reason Cruz and other anti-gay-marriage conservatives supported her was because of the specific issue at hand. The constitutionalist Cruz has similarly argued against lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, calling instead for "judicial retention elections" and he is against the generally accepted understanding of birthright citizenship as defined in the Constitution.

Which is to say the ultimate question in front of us, especially in election seasons, isn't whether something is the law but whether the law is right or not.

In the exchange with O'Reilly above, Cruz's main justification is simply that illegals are here in violation of current law. Sure, that's true. But such as argument elides whether current immigration policy is good policy (and hence law). And it ignores that immigration law can change rapidly, as it did in the 1920s, when Congress enacted baldly racist quotas based on what country you were coming from, and in the late 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and Congress overnight changed the status of millions of illegals. Any discussion of policy that relies mostly on "this is the law" rather than an explanation of why the law is good or bad is ultimately a dodge, not a constitutional argument.

Especially from a libertarian point of view, it seems absolutely in error to argue that deporting 12 million people makes sense or is a good use of federal resources. Illegals don't steal jobs from Americans or have much if any effect on wages. They cause less crime than comparable native-born Americans, pay a lot of taxes (and would gladly pay more if given work permits), and help boost the economy. The idea that the federal government, of all things, should be dictating the labor supply seems insane to me. And don't buy the argument that illegals cost the welfare state more than they kick in through taxes and work efforts. Illegals are barred from virtually all forms of welfare and to the extent that they do get any benefits, that's simply an argument against the welfare state, not immigrants. Note also that the same argument is often made against legal immigrants, too, and is similarly off-base.

Again, this is all from a libertarian perspective: I understand that conservatives have other (equally false) anxieties about cultural solidarity or political fallout of immigrants. Being anti-immigration has become a litmus test for conservatives and it is pushing them into truly odious places where they are calling for national I.D. cards in the form of E-Verify and asking questions such as "Does Immigration Mean The End of Western Civilization?" I understand that liberals and progressives have often disliked low-skilled immigrants because of a first allegiance to unionized labor.

We libertarians are a different breed, though. We tend to acknowledge that if there is widespread avoidance of a given law—say drug prohibition—it is probably because the law is fundamentally stupid, unenforceable, or both. As long as people aren't hurting others, better to change the policy rather than go apeshit crazy in trying to enforce something that is widely flouted.

So I'm curious to get a sense from libertarians, who generally support open borders in goods, services, and people, why they think Cruz's immigration policy wouldn't massively empower the federal government to enter all aspects of our everyday lives in a way that would be far worse than simply changing the abitrary status of legal vs. illegal.

NEXT: Does the 1st Amendment Apply to Political Ads in Public Transit Systems? SCOTUS Refuses to Weigh In, Clarence Thomas Dissents

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. as well as the role of Captain Vere in Billy Budd,

    *Lights nicole-signal*

    1. Hey, just because an old sea dog might like to spend a little time in a sailor…

    2. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. OT =

    PROBLEMATIC ALERT

    Bernie “Shushed” Woman Who Was Interrupting Him

    ” Sanders has almost certainly been briefed on this research and had someone preparing him for debates try to identify the right way to manage Clinton’s interruptions. (Our suggestion: Try some version of “Excuse me” or “I would like to finish,” minus the hand gestures.)

    But the second is the one that may really be worth our collective time. That is: Does Sanders have the capacity to recognize the way these moments look or think deeply about the degree to which sexism propels his debate-stage performances? Whether that chauvinism is real or imagined or even toyed with by his opponent for political gain, why can’t Sanders find a better way to manage these moments? And, is some combination of all of the above something that a 21st-century presidential candidate has simply got to consider and manage effectively? Does the inability or unwillingness to examine his body language, tone and actions for hints or indicators of sexism ? if not real but perceived by some women ? tell us all what we really need to know?”

      1. The only thing worse than that video are the commenters.

        1. I really enjoyed the video.

      2. Still nowhere near as rude as coitus interruptus.

      3. So interrupting women who never SHUT THE FUCK UP is “rape”.

        Bitches be crazy…

    1. WHYCUM U NVR TLK BAD OF TRRUMP

      1. TRUMP IS STRONG. TRUMP MAKES US GO.

        1. TRUMP SAY WHAT ME ALREADY THINKING. HE NO GO FAR ENOUGH!

        2. Whatever happened to those guys? Did they get thrown on the alien-of-the-week trash heap?

        3. WE ARE NOT WEAK. WE ARE STRONG!
          TRUMP MAKES US GO!

      2. NICK NO CUCKTARIAN!

    2. “Whether that chauvinism is real or imagined or even toyed with by his opponent for political gain, why can’t Sanders find a better way to manage these moments?”

      I’m going to guess this reporter will vote for Hillary, and would like nothing better than to be able to pin actual sexism on Sanders. Since she can’t do this, she’s reduced to concern-trolling about how *other people* will see this as sexist.

      “I’m not saying Sanders is SEXIST SEXIST SEXIST and is standing in the way of OUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT YAY HOW WONDERFUL THAT WOULD BE, but I will at least do my best to beat the SEXISM drum.”

      (by the way, that thing about beating a drum is RACIST because the reporter is black and drums are associated with white people).

      And

      1. and that’s it for now actually.

      2. drums are associated with white people

        Fuck you.

        1. Drat, I had meant to make a sarcastic comment that drums=black people, and then clicking the link would have shown that was an over-generalization.

        2. I think these guys are white.

          But maybe I’m in a significant minority when it comes to this coming to mind when someone says ‘drums’.

      3. When in doubt, beat the Vote Vagina drum.

    3. If this writer were actually saying this to me I would probably do the same thing Sanders did, and when she begins to sputter I’d probably walk away. It’s a rather enjoyable thing to do.

    4. “Keep in mind that, if Sanders were to secure the Democratic nomination and then win the election, there are many female heads of state, foreign government representatives and others who are not men, with which Sanders will have to work effectively. It’s in many ways the very same reason to concern ourselves with Donald Trump’s debate stage and Twitter behavior and the methods and insults he’s adopted when attempting to confront women ? journalists, political opponents and others.”

      Well, most women who rise to be head of state aren’t gigantic pussies like the average Millennial Washington Post writer so I think they’ll be able to handle it.

      1. What if he does something crazy like rub Merkel’s shoulders?

      2. Well if any of those women keep interrupting him, maybe he’ll have to tell them to hold on. He’s getting his practice in. What a stupid issue.

    5. lol. The only thing to look forward to in a trump vs clinton race is going to be the pearl clutching. If what Bernie did was sexist the apocalyptic explosion that will occur when trump insinuates hillary is a lesbian might be worth the ensuing 4 years of shit.

    6. Maybe Bernie is just a tone-deaf old man who gets irritable whenever someone interrupts or contradicts him?

      1. I don’t think interrupting Hillary makes you tone deaf, since about 70% of any given audience would love to interrupt her given the chance.

        1. What, are you sexist now, too?

    7. My wife is half Finnish. And I like to Finnish. A LOT.

    8. I am so triggered right now.

    9. Well journalists know we women are delicate and can just be crushed by an “excuse me, I’m talking” if accompanied by a hand gesture. If Hillary needs to be treated differently due to her gender, there is no equality.

  3. So I’m curious to get a sense from libertarians, who generally support open borders in goods, services, and people, why they think Cruz’s immigration policy wouldn’t massively empower the federal government to enter all aspects of our everyday lives in a way that would be far worse than simply changing the abitrary status of legal vs. illegal.

    It would.

    1. Oh, so you don’t trust the government to do anything, but you trust it to, uh, wait, hmm…

    2. But we believe in markets and incentives, right? So part of the deal is that we’re going to abolish all of the labor laws and let civil courts and markets settle the problem of employers incentivizing illegal immigration by not following wage and benefit regulations? Because that’s my sticking point. Abolish the H1-B and H2-B visas that require an employer sponsor and gives undo leverage to the employer in that voluntary relationship?

      1. Abolish the H1-B and H2-B visas that require an employer sponsor and gives undo leverage to the employer in that voluntary relationship?

        If replaced by a guest worker program, why not?

        1. And that’s my preferred solution, but if you can show me a politically viable path to that, I’d be grateful. I get the feeling that getting many of the employers and immigrants to come suddenly aboveboard is going to be a challenge, to say nothing of the screaming when the average IT wage falls by 40%. Also, what happens if a guest worker no longer chooses to work or can’t find a job? What incentive is there for such a person to go home? What if they can’t afford to? What if their choice is being unemployed and broke in America or the same somewhere else?
          I am very sympathetic to the plight of the individual immigrant, I am uncertain that the benefits of free immigration are going to be evenly distributed.

          And, obviously, there’s no precedent for the government honoring it’s own law, so why would I think this would be less fraught with loopholes, graft, and cronyist exceptions?

          1. So, what happens if a guest worker no longer chooses to work or can’t find a job? What incentive is there for such a person to go home?

            As a former guest worker in another country, the incentive was a few years in the Bangkok Hilton.

            I don’t see how your concerns are any different than the situation we have now for any legal non-immigrant visa. People overstay tourist visas all the time, should we prohibit foreigners from entering for tourism?

      2. S/undo/undue

      3. Not sure why this is a question for me?

        1. Sorry, just hopping on a convenient quotation. It is not directed at you to answer the hypotheticals.

    3. I don’t get the fear of open borders. Most of the problem with the border right now stems from the ill-advised drug war creating a ready black market in contraband. End that and crime would plummet.

      But my biggest problem with Cruz asking for libertarian support isn’t that he would enforce the immigration laws (and vigorously so), it’s that he calls for carpet bombing civilian populations in the Middle East.

      1. he calls for carpet bombing civilian populations in the Middle East

        You could argue that what he called for would necessitate that, but that’s not what he said:

        “BLITZER: Thank you. To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?
        CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed ? and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.”

        1. So you’re saying Ted Cruz doesn’t know what “carpet bomb” means and doesn’t understand that ISIS is embedded in the civilian population precisely because it makes it impossible to bomb them without bombing civilians?

          1. I’m sure he knows what it means. He was using it in the *metaphorical* sense of an intense and thorough bombardment.

            And no, I don’t believe they always have human shield sitting on their laps.

          2. “So you’re saying Ted Cruz doesn’t know what “carpet bomb” means ”

            Meh, Cruz is slightly wrong with his usage, but it’s not complete off the mark.

            Carpet bomb: “to drop large numbers of bombs so as to cause uniform devastation over (a given area)” My assumption is that by direction, he means defining it as a given area that has a troop concentration, without a large civilian presence. The US certainly used B52’s in this manner during the Gulf War.

  4. Cruz is presenting something close to a tautology here: Illegal immigrants should be deported.

    The real issue isn’t (or shouldn’t be) do we enforce our laws on immigration. The real issue is (or should be) what should our laws on immigration be? Personally, I think we need an overhaul that allows for for pretty open issuance of work visas. However, I don’t think the executive should be able to pretend that the law is different than what it is, so de facto amendments of immigration law (or any other law) by the executive are not something I am crazy about.

    1. It’s worth nothing that a rhetorical tautology is not the same thing as a logical tautology. Not that you’re guilty of confusing the two, but it was a “teachable moment”.

      1. “Truism” might have been a better word.

    2. Oh god, be careful what you wish for. Who is going to fix it? Are you speaking of our current elected government? You trust them to ‘fix’ something? If you mean fucking it way beyond what it is now, then ok, because that’s the only possible outcome.

      1. Our alternatives to fixing immigration law are these:

        (1) Congress passes something, and the President signs it.

        (2) The President does whatever the fuck xe wants.

        Bad as (1) is, (2) is worse.

        1. I disagree. Both will be equally bad, and actually congress passing something will be even worse since they’ll stuff the bill full of cronyism, pork, and all sorts of unimaginable anti-constitutional horrors. I would rather the POTUS just say ‘open the fucking borders, welcome 3rd world!

          1. I dunno, Hyperion. Consider:

            The current front-runner for the Presidency is Hillary. Do you really think she would not adopt a policy full of cronyism, pork, and all sorts of unimaginable anti-constitutional horrors?

            1. Yes, but that’s not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that I would rather the POTUS just ignore the fucking law like Obama is doing, rather than have cronies write up some bullshit.

              My preference is leave the fucking law like it is. Ignore it, enforce it, whatever, just don’t fuck with it.

              I think there’s going to be some limit on the POTUS actually trying to rewrite the law.

          2. That will end well.

        2. Not if for (2), the president looks the other way instead of enforcing a bad law vigorously, or appoints an incompetent political lackey to head up INS.

    3. No, there’s another question, which is what do you do to try to enforce laws on immigr’n, given that under most circumstances it’s not going to come to fedgov’s att’n that someone is in the country illegally? We’ve already had for decades form I-9 to fill out re permission to be an employee; what else could you do that would not be even more intrusive & inconvenient?

  5. O’Reilly helps nail Cruz down on the question.

    At first Cruz sought to get away with saying that any illegal immigrant *who gets caught* must be deported, which would leave wriggle room for him to specify that he wouldn’t *seek* out your run-of-the-mill illegal.

    O’Reilly caught that, and asks if the feds should actually seek out illegals *qua* illegals. So Cruz said the feds are already supposed to do that, “that’s what ICE is for.”

    So that narrows his wriggle room. He still has some walkback room in that ICE doesn’t have all the money it needs, so it will have to prioritize its investigations for immigrant criminals, etc.

    But good on O’Reilly for flagging Cruz’s lawyerly evasion.

    1. Not bad. I would have preferred a line of questioning about Cruz’s inconsistencies on “the law is the law”. If you are going to hold up a principle as justifying your position on X, you had better be ready to apply that principle A – Z.

  6. But such as argument elides whether current immigration policy is good policy (and hence law).

    I’m puzzled by this sentence. It seems to imply that good policy is law, regardless of whether it has been validly adopted as such (passage of Congress, etc.). It also implies that bad policy isn’t law. This is the kind of thinking that drives many libertarians crazy when SCOTUS engages in it.

    Maybe I’m misreading it, but that’s sure how it looks to me.

    1. The emphasis is on good versus bad law, not the distinction between law versus policy.

      1. Could just be bad drafting, but it sure reads to me like “good policy = law”, which isn’t the way things are supposed to work.

        1. Doesn’t Nick have a PHD in English?

          Where is MNG when you need him?

  7. Maybe “libertarians” support Cruz because many are not actually libertarians and do not actually have a problem with using the government to enforce laws that wouldn’t affect them?

    1. Well there’s that, plus theres the generally horrible stuff Trump and Clinton would do to MY rights as a CITIZEN. Sorry illegal aliens, right now I’m more concerned about citizens rights than banging the drum for fully open immigration.

      Oh and BTW I REALLY don’t like open immigration plus massive welfare giveaways to immigrants.

      1. citizens rights

        You do realize that there is no such animal, beyond voting and citizenship, right?

        I REALLY don’t like open immigration plus massive welfare giveaways to immigrants.

        I have a very simple solution.

        1. Well yes, ending the welfare state wholesale is a great solution.

          1. Let’s get right on that.

            Except if you continuously import millions of new welfare recipients who will reliably vote for anyone who promises to expand welfare, you’ll never end welfare. It’s almost as if that’s the fucking point.

            Why don’t libertarians fucking understand this simple fact?

            YOU CANNOT END WELFARE UNTIL THE BORDERS ARE CLOSED. STOP BEING USEFUL IDIOTS TO THE WELFARE STATE BY SUPPORTING OPEN BORDERS.

            1. Can’t open the border until welfare is is gone.

      2. Yeah, okay. Because using governmental police powers against one class of people has never ever resulted in those police powers being used against others.

        1. Yes, that’s true, but the difference here is that Cruz is talking about enforcing laws on the books. Hill and Bern are talking about fun new laws that ban free speech, free association, and the right to bear arms.

          In truth I really don’t actually give a shit about sending illegals back or not.

    2. Or maybe they like some of the positions he’s taken before (although he has walked them back considerably). Cruz had a fairly solid claim to be the second most libertarian major party candidate running at one point. That’s dwindled considerably, but I think it needs to be taken seriously.

    3. Maybe Progressitarians support OPEN BORDERZ because many are not actually libertarians and do not actually have a problem with expanding the electoral power of those who want an ever expanding state.

      1. Straw man argument is a straw man.

        1. How is his post a Straw man argument? There clearly are people arguing for Open Borders.

  8. I know it’s 8 months until the election, but I’ll keep asking reason until they do it: let’s discuss the pro/con of the following strategies :

    1. Not voting
    2. Voting LP
    3. Identifying the least worst of D/R

    How do we Liberty lovers maximize freedom given the choices above? Until then these columns are either a restatement of “look how unlibertarian this asshole is on this one issue” or “look how libertarian this shitbird is on this one issue”.

    1. Your vote doesn’t count, so you shouldn’t count on voting to help you maximize freedom.

      1. Again, the problem restated in the negative. Someday we will need to actually come up with a strategy besides saying “boo hoo everyone sucks”. I’m probably hanging out in the last place one would find that, now that I think about it.

    2. Explicitly voting for a candidate endorses the current political regime.

      Just say no.

      1. The only way to vote strategically is to vote for the candidate you most agree with, even if they have no shot to win. If you don’t vote, no one in the media adds up your non-vote as a vote against the current regime. They count your non-vote as apathy or acquiescence. But a vote for a clear protest candidate is a clear protest.

      2. What if I’m voting AGAINST a candidate.

        Oh Yeah.

        Can Di Date?

        No. She is still dead.

    3. Step 1 does nothing, but at least you save your time.
      Step 3 is okay of the least bad D/R is remotely libertarian, too late now that Rand dropped out.
      Step 2 is the way to go: Vote LP, even if they nominate a loon. At least you won’t be counted as a Trump/Clinton supporter.

      1. For #2 they sometimes nominate a loon that isn’t even remotely libertarian.

  9. Being anti-immigration has become a litmus test for conservatives

    because all immigration is the same. There is no impact whatsoever from the mass importation of low-skilled and low educated people, and they do not impact the welfare state in any way. Jeezus in a flying biscuit; it’s this sort of convoluted bullshit illogic that means permanent inconsequential status.

    1. Low-skilled? My Home Depot carnales do a damn good job for CHEAP. That’s capitalism at its finest, no?

      1. open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist. And yes, the vast majority of illegals are low-skilled. I get why they take such a risk but let’s not pretend that their presence occurs in a vacuum.

        1. Does that also apply to the open border between the average vagina and the welfare state?

          1. what does that even mean?

            1. That for some reason it’s a problem to have to pay for another person when they cross one border, but not the other.

              1. it’s a problem both ways. Why should someone else subsidize your vagina.

                1. They shouldn’t, but I never see you call for reproduction-licensing laws.

                  1. And you’ve never argued for the right to shoot illegal immigrants because they’re near the border, so maybe this analogy sucks

                    1. I’m sorry you don’t really understand analogies.

                    2. I’m sorry you don’t really understand analogies.

                      Kinda funny.

                      Anyway, how realistic is the passage of “reproduction licensing laws” (genetics, secure funds, etc.?)? Immigration laws are evidently much more realistic. Why should he call for unrealistic laws when that – at best – would ruin his reputation and influence?

        2. The overwhelming majority of immigrants do not come here to get on welfare. Most come to engage in menial, sometimes backbreaking work, like cleaning hotel rooms, or picking fruits and vegetables that pay shit wages, that most Americans will not do, but that nevertheless present a better opportunity than is available to them in there native countries. The one benefit they do want to take advantage of is the chance to send their kids to American schools in the hope that when they grow up they won’t have to work at the same shitty jobs, all while the American kids are blowing off their homework to play stupid video games, and then complaining that “they took our jobs!”

          1. Bullshit.

            The Mexican government used money sent by the US to print pamphlets showing how/where to jump the border, and where the free shit was once they got here.

            Why would that be, if an overwhelming majority were looking for work? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give the Criminal Trepassers info on where the best jobs are?

            The reason Americans “won’t do” those sorts of jobs is, Americans expect a day’s wages for a day’s work – unlike the Criminal Trespassers who are happy to get more than 37 cents a day.

        3. open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist.

          Open borders is the means the Dems have been using to shore up their electoral, and thereby their statist ambitions. It’s not that the open borders and the welfare state can’t coexist, they *will* coexist.

      2. You gave them a 1099 and applicable state documentation that you paid them adequately?

        1. Sure did! A shiny nickel for each of them for a hard day’s work.

          1. That’s my point. Sure both you and they may agree that $100/day is a good wage. But the State of California probably thinks otherwise, and while you’re not really affected, the contractor who has enough assets to be worth suing is.

            1. while you’re not really affected

              Exactly. The contractors need to take up their complaints with the state, not me.

    2. See, the law of supply and demand applies to everything except labor.

      1. BUT, BUT, TEH WELFARE STATE

        1. Yeah, my sarcasm was actually pointed the other way, at those who think mass importation of low priced labor doesn’t drive blue collar wages down. The welfare state is problematic no matter who receives the goodies: crack whores or corporations.

          1. Meh, I guess I really can’t muster up much sympathy for blue collar wages being driven down.

            1. What we really need to do is set no upper limit on H1B visas. As many should be issued as there are people in other countries who want to work here. That would, of course, have no effect on wages for skilled labor here.

              1. Well, no. It would have a corrective effect.

                1. Imagine the screaming from Silicon Valley when the average price of a highly technical computer acientist/engineer drops to $50/hour including benefits.

                  1. That is exactly what I would love to see since I can’t muster up much sympathy foe tech worker wages being driven down.

                    1. I can’t muster up much sympathy foe tech worker wages being driven down.

                      Driven down? Or, as HM said, corrected? The market should set the wage. Why do I care about the wages of blue collar workers? All I care about is entering a contract with laborers to build me a deck. Or should I care because they’re good American blue collar workers?

                    2. Sure, corrected, driven downward. The market should set the wage. All I care about is getting better tech products for cheaper. Or should I care because they’re good American tech workers?

                    3. Don’t worry, no hot-blooded ESL foreigner is going to sneak into your house at night to take your good (and skilled labor!) American job, yet. No upper-limit on H1B visas is only a dream, for now.

        2. So you’re saying that illegal immigration doesn’t contribute to the expanding welfare state?

          Please, do explain.

      2. I’m really starting to think that people who say “the law of supply and demand” in the context of labor economics have no actual idea what “the law of supply and demand” means.

        If your wages would go down under a certain action, then they are currently inflated. That inflation has knock-on effects just as decreased wages do. Lower employment levels and lower spending power, for one thing.

        1. “If your wages would go down under a certain action, then they are currently inflated. ”

          Well it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand what the law of supply and demand means. There’s no such thing as “inflated”. It’s just the market rate. If you change the market (by adding supply) then the rate will tend downward and demand will go upward.

          It’s meaningless to use the word “inflated” in that context.

  10. It’s easy, I treat economic freedom and smaller government in terms of subsidies and regulations as a better objective than open borders. Libertarians are going to have to put open borders on the far back burner because it won’t be happening any time soon and having a hang up on that issue will sacrifice other liberties and gain nothing. Cruz is good on subsidies, believes in state rights and reducing the role of federal government. He hasn’t claimed to have a search squad deport the millions of immigrants here, just deporting those who get caught for other reasons. Until you have welfare and entitlement reform, open borders isn’t even a good idea so I prioritize economic and social liberty over immigration.

    1. What Cruz is proposing will reduce economic freedom and increase the size of government. E-Verfiy is nothing if not a regulatory burden making employers into unpaid deputees for the ICE.

      1. He would only require federal contractors and sub contractors to use e-verify, so technically they are paid by the government to use it. He said he wants to make it easier for the private market to use it, but has not said anything about forcing private companies not bidding to work for the federal government to use it.

      2. He would only require federal contractors and sub contractors to use e-verify, so technically they are paid by the government to use it. He said he wants to make it easier for the private market to use it, but has not said anything about forcing private companies not bidding to work for the federal government to use it.

        1. I think they’ve got E-verify all wrong.

          It shouldn’t be a requirement to get a job. It should be a requirement for any kind of government transfer payment – welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, SocSec, food stamps, housing assistance, you name it.

          1. It shouldn’t be a requirement to get a job. It should be a requirement for any kind of government transfer payment – welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, SocSec, food stamps, housing assistance, you name it.

            But then the government wouldn’t have as much power to control and coerce businesses. You don’t seem to be on board with the fascist-socialist fusion economic system that’s all the rage these days.

          2. It’s only a requirement if you’re job is working for the government. Private employers can freely choose to not use it.

            1. It’s only a requirement if you’re job is working for the government. Private employers can freely choose to not use it.

              Not in many states. Moreover, the underlying requirement to process and submit Form I-9 and refuse to employ ineligible workers has been in place since 1986 and was not repealed by E-Verify.

              1. Can’t really hold the President accountable for state laws. That is a supreme court issue.

                1. You can’t really hold an incoming President accountable for any extant laws. But it is still fair to ask how he would enforce it and assess the proposals on their merits, as well as to discuss the law itself consequently.

  11. I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump.

    I remain perplexed by anyone who views any of the candidates as worthy to lead.

    1. JUST THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE THEN U MORAN

      1. You*
        Moron*

        Education fail.

        Welcome to irrelevance.

    2. I remain perplexed by anyone who views any of the candidates as worthy to lead.

      To paraphrase William Munny: “worthy’s got nothing to do with it”.

      We have a system that, whether by design or effect, selects for the least worthy individuals and then based on mostly irrelevant factors separates them into two or more mostly arbitrary groupings, eventually reducing the decision down to two such individuals before finally selecting one of them.

      If you could devise a way to select a worthy leader, this would quite possibly be the least effective system for doing so.

      1. As the man said, “democracy is the worst form of government, except all the rest”.

  12. I understand that conservatives have other (equally false) anxieties about cultural solidarity or political fallout of immigrants

    As anxiety is a state of inner mental turmoil, I don’t understand how an anxiety can either be true or false. It is an experience that arises from the anticipation of an unpleasant event. I am a fairly gregarious extrovert; as such, the anticipation of interaction with other people, even some whom I haven’t met before, doesn’t induce anxiety within me. However, plenty people experience social anxiety. Who am I to tell them their anxiety is “false”?

    1. Wait, are you saying that “feelz” may actually be real?

      1. Wait, are you saying that “feelz” may actually be real?

        “Amygdala” ain’t just a river in Egypt, nicole.

      2. All feelings are equally real (or unreal, take your pick).

        The interesting question is whether they are well-founded.

        1. The interesting question is whether they are well-founded.

          I’m sure that’s what Nick meant; however, explaining to the introvert that no one is going to laugh at them if they open their mouth at a party isn’t very likely to change their predilection for feeling anxious in social situations. As such, Nick is barking up the wrong tree. Like you mention above “conservative” and “anxiousness about the nature and stability of the status quo social order” are tautological. It is a pre-rational stance.

    2. Presumably Nick wouldn’t dismiss anxieties about the consequences of the mass surveillance of the Americans perpetrated by the NSA. Even though those anxieties are shared by a small minority, most people correctly believe that they personally will never be harmed by the NSA. So, which anxiety is true: mass immigration will change the American culture or mass surveillance will?

      1. Whichever one gets him invited to the coolest cocktail parties.

      2. It’s perfectly reasonable to say, I support Open Borders for ideological reasons. It’s also perfectly reasonable for people to say they are against Open Borders because it economically harms them.

        There are (for the foreseeable future) going to be far more people in group B than in group A. We live in a representative Democracy, so the law of the land is going to lean strongly in favor of B. So, why should Libertarians dwell on an issue they aren’t going to win and ignore a lot of issues that they could potentially directly effect.

        Ted Cruz want to not raise the minimum wage. That issue alone makes him vastly preferable to either Democratic candidate.

    3. Given the experience of “conservatives” with multi-cultural ideology, I’m not even sure that their “anxieties” about the possible cultural or political impacts of expanding the population of unassimilated and aggrieved immigrants are entirely unfounded. Given that opposing expanded immigration is routinely met with accusations of bigotry and racism, a fear that new immigrants will be fuel for the multi-culti grievance machine is not entirely irrational, no?

      It also seems pretty clear to me that large communities of unassimilated immigrants are not necessarily a pleasant experience, locally.

      If we had no welfare state and a confident policy of assimilation, I suspect that much of the opposition to “open borders” would evaporate. As it is, some of the pro-immigration side seems all too eager to make this an us v them issue, so they shouldn’t be surprised that the “them” they target pushes back.

      1. It also seems pretty clear to me that large communities of unassimilated immigrants are not necessarily a pleasant experience, locally.

        To be honest, Flushing is the best part of NYC.

        1. flushing is nice to get some asian cuisine ( and if you need car parts), but it sucks in almost every other dimension.

      2. Remember it was an unassimilated Italian anarchist who missed a chance to be an American hero by killing the mayor of Chicago instead of FDR in Miami in 1936.

        1. But he was aiming at Cermak. Still, he may have accidentally hit FDR the same as Oswald accidentally hit JFK, and as Hickey did as well in preparing to return fire.

      3. It also seems pretty clear to me that large communities of unassimilated immigrants are not necessarily a pleasant experience, locally.

        There are a lot of areas in Houston and the surrounding areas that prove this point, they generally move into areas that are a little older and transform them into third world cesspools.

        What bothers me about the open borders advocates is that nobody seems to care much about the thousands of people who have their identities stolen by illegals who come here, whatever the justification. It is a real problem. If someone breaks into your house, takes up residence, assumes your identity, spends your money, and uses your shit, you don’t let them stay because they might have cleaned the place once.

        1. Same thing happened in my hometown on the Central Coast of California. . .

          When I moved away in the mid-80s, I had friends who lived in a quiet little middle-class area, mostly home owners, mostly Americans (born and immigrant).

          I moved back in 2002, after my first marriage fell apart – to find a 3rd World shithole where there was once a pleasant neighborhood – peeling paint. . . broken, boarded up windows. . . graffiti everywhere. . . weeds and partial cars on front lawns. . . trash in the streets. . . and not a word of English to be heard.

          I thought I’d made a wrong turn and ended up in Mexicali. . .

          1. I moved back in 2002, after my first marriage fell apart – to find a 3rd World shithole where there was once a pleasant neighborhood – peeling paint. . . broken, boarded up windows. . . graffiti everywhere. . . weeds and partial cars on front lawns. . . trash in the streets. . . and not a word of English to be heard.

            Dude! Didn’t you eat at that awesome Taco Truck two blocks over? Totally evens things out…

  13. “So I’m curious to get a sense from libertarians, who generally support open borders in goods, services, and people, why they think Cruz’s immigration policy wouldn’t massively empower the federal government to enter all aspects of our everyday lives in a way that would be far worse than simply changing the arbitrary status of legal vs. illegal.”

    In 2008, Barack Obama’s position on gay marriage was that “Marriage is between a man and a woman”.

    Lots of gay rights activists got behind him anyway–and they were right to do so. Despite openly campaigning against gay marriage, Obama did more for the gay rights movement in office than anyone ever did before him.

    I think there is a good argument to make that Obama won the Presidency, in part, because he campaigned against gay marriage. That’s what politicians do–don’t trust what they say!

    Right now, to win the primaries, Cruz has to say what he has to say. There’s a market of ideas out there, and, unfortunately, what libertarians are selling right now isn’t what the primary voters are buying.

    1. “what libertarians are selling right now isn’t what the primary voters are buying.”

      Shocker.

      1. And how many Democrats are mad at Obama because they voted for him because he opposed gay marriage?

        They don’t expect their candidates to live up to their promises as much over there, and that makes it a little like asymmetrical warfare.

        1. And how many Democrats are mad at Obama because they voted for him because he opposed gay marriage?

          Dead people don’t vote for a candidate because of his positions, Ken.

        2. You make a point which i’ve made 100 times here to no avail

          Standard GOP campaign-promising bullshit-rhetoric is probably LESS libertarian than the Democrat bullshit-rhetoric…

          …IF you believe that the most important libertarian priorities are “Kindness to Mexican border-hoppers” and “Pretending to be Peace-Loving Non-Interventionists”

          Because the GOP base wants only to hear that their president will mercilessly crush all enemies, and keep people from Taykin Thar Jobes

          The Dem base, by contrast, wants to be endlessly told how tolerant and peace loving they are, UNLIKE THOSE AWFUL MONSTERS IN RED TIES.

          The problem is that libertarians suddenly become complete fucking retards during campaigns, and start pretending that campaign rhetoric actually *means anything in reality*, compared to how these respective individuals (and their parties) actually vote on issues, or how they’ve actually implemented their own ideas in practice in the past.

          The campaign rhetoric is meant to cover up “weaknesses”. As Obama’s comments re: gay marriage were. Taking this shit at face value is idiotic.

          1. Campaign rhetoric doesn’t mean nothing just because it shouldn’t be taken at face value. R primary campaign rhetoric means exactly what you said: that the GOP base wants only to hear that their president will mercilessly crush all enemies, and keep people from Taykin Thar Jobes.

            Fuck people who want to hear that.

            1. “Fuck people who want to hear that.”

              says you! you’re not trying to get elected.

            2. Fuck people who want to hear that.

              Can I just fuck the women?

            3. So……what you want to hear in a campaign is that the president will allow the merciless slaughter of the citizenry by enemies and that the president will make sure that someone takes your job and impoverishes you?

              Derptarded much?

  14. “He’s even proud to point out that unlike Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, he would not only round up the illegals but ban them forever from becoming U.S. citizens.”

    I would think that even someone who wants to legalize some of the illegals would not want to make voters and officeholders out of them. Their kids would have birthright citizenship, they themselves would have the right to stay in this country, but no, they themselves wouldn’t be able to vote for laws or lawmakers.

    1. The idea that a foreigner who systematically broke our laws shouldn’t be eligible to become a citizen does not strike me as completely nuts.

      1. I break your laws every day. Where should I drop off my Real ID?

        1. Sadly, Hugh, you are already a citizen, and we don’t strip citizenship for committing crimes.

          Its a separate issue whether we should grant citizenship to people who have broken our laws, intentionally and systematically. I can see an argument that we shouldn’t.

          1. Endowment effect.

      2. As long as those are crimes where there is an actual victim, I agree with you.

        1. Well, yeah. But getting rid of victimless crimes is up there with repealing the welfare state on the list of “things that ain’t gonna happen”.

        2. See: identity theft.

      3. The idea that a foreigner who systematically broke our laws shouldn’t be eligible to become a citizen does not strike me as completely nuts.

        And it’s an actual possible deterrent.

  15. I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump.

    He’s eminently palletable. Couple of tie-downs, some stretch-wrap, and a shipping label, and he’s safely on his way back to the great white north.

  16. Think of it this way: if it were Rand Paul saying all the same things Cruz is saying on immigration, wouldn’t we support him anyway? It’s not that I agree with that immigration stance. It’s that if we want someone in office who isn’t entirely hostile to capitalism and free trade (and Trump is hostile to free trade), then Cruz needs to beat Trump with the pool of primary voters he’s got.

    The market of ideas–come election time–is like any other market . You don’t dictate terms to the market. The market dictates terms to you. You don’t tell the market what to buy. The market tells you what it wants.

    The Republican primary market wants anti-immigration promises. If Cruz wants to win the primary, he has to say what people want to hear. And if I want someone who isn’t a committed enemy of capitalism and free trade to win, then I might have to stick my fingers in my ears until November.

    1. The market of ideas–come election time–is like any other market . You don’t dictate terms to the market. The market dictates terms to you. You don’t tell the market what to buy. The market tells you what it wants

      Don’t worry, the Democrats only need a little more power and time, they’re going to fix this.

  17. “Illegals are barred from virtually all forms of welfare and to the extent that they do get any benefits, that’s simply an argument against the welfare state, not immigrants.”

    For the sake of argument I will accept the truth of this statement (and I probably accept it generally). Nick then goes on to criticize Cruz for his stance against granting citizenship, a legal status that would absolutely entitle these individuals to welfare benefits. If most libertarians believe welfare benefits amount to forced deprivation of the property of one for the benefit of a favored other, can’t Nick’s position be accused of being anti-libertarian as well?

    1. I might add that paying to imprisoning illegal aliens for crimes unrelated to immigration, sending illegal alien kids to public schools, and using ERs (that are prohibited from refusing services based on the inability to pay) as free clinics–none of those things are counted as “welfare”.

      But they end up costing the taxpayers all the same.

    2. “Illegals are barred from virtually all forms of welfare”

      Heh, they’re barred from even being here, how’s the working? States are giving illegals all sorts of benefits.

    3. The problem with the statement that “illegals don’t get welfare benefits” is that it’s not the case. In most states, if they can get an ID/DL, which most of them do, they can apply for food stamps at least and in some cases, more. talk to anyone (like my aunt) who worked in social services for twenty years, and they’ll tell you illegals getting benefits is the rule more than the exception.

    4. Who the hell said that Nick was a libertarian?

      The Jacket is libertarian.

      Nick’s as liberal as you can get.

  18. They cause less crime than comparable native-born Americans

    Reason finally says ” than comparable native-born Americans,” and it’s on the wrong talking point.

    The idea that the federal government, of all things, should be dictating the labor supply seems insane to me.

    “labor supply”

    1. The feds setting interest rates is pretty crazy too.

  19. “palatable alternative”

    Not sure I would go that far. Maybe less douchy alternative? I’m voting for Johnson, the actual libertarian that Reason rarely writes about.

    1. Look, after the Trump coverage, there’s only so many hours in the day! What? You want to turn Reason into a 19th century sweatshop and make the writers work 15 hours a day just to write stuff that is not directly related to the Donald? Hogwash!

    2. They don’t write about him because he doesn’t really have a shot.

      1. And no libertarian will ever have a shot if no one writes about them.

    3. “…Johnson, the actual libertarian that Reason rarely writes about.”

      It would be awfully nice to hear a little bit more about what we (as much as there is a “we”) are actually for, instead of just all of these assholes representing things we are against. It’s like Reason is we are an utterly inconsequential and irrelevant political movement. Wait what?

      1. They’re too busy shitting their pants over Trump, like the rest of the media, to focus on anything else.

      2. I think it has more to do with Johnson than not wanting to write what people are for. Look at his achievment list on his website:

        He turned a one-man handyman operation into the state’s largest
        construction company.

        (That’s pretty neat, good to know)

        ? As Governor, he was elected against the odds, and then re-elected.

        (Congrats?)

        ? He stopped overspending by vetoing more spending bills than any other
        Governor.

        (ok, but what did he do to actually reduce size and not just freeze growth?)

        ? He is an accomplished triathlete who has climbed the highest peak on each
        of the 7 continents.

        (Ok? Good job I guess. He deos know that the presidential race isn’t an actual running race right?)

        ? He placed third in the 2012 Presidential race with the highest number of
        votes for a Libertarian candidate in history.

        (With a grand total of, drum roll please *BRTRTRTRTRTRTRTRTRTRT* .99%. I can see why he is such a threat to the two party system)

        1. And Obama was a nobody community organizer but liberals who wanted a liberal president wrote stories about him and now he’s the president. Funny how that works.

  20. They cause less crime than comparable native-born Americans,

    This one again. I remain unconvinced that illegal cause less crime than native-born Americans. I just haven’t seen a study that is worth a damn. You generally get a couple of arguments in support of this: a study showing all immigrants, legal and otherwise, aren’t committing much crime. Or something like what the linked article shows, that illegals commit 5% of the crime (not counting violations of immigration law). Given that illegals probably constitute less than 3% of the population, this isn’t super-comforting.

    Illegals are barred from virtually all forms of welfare

    Well, yeah, if they check the “I am an illegal immigrant” box on the application. Many-to-most illegals have fake IDs so they can pass as US citizens, you know, which makes it very hard to determine how much welfare is paid to illegals.

    1. Many-to-most illegals have fake IDs

      Pretty much all of them, and they don’t care much about the law. Not that they are really bothering anyone. One of the things they do is sell cars to each other, plates and all, which it’s illegal in this state to transfer the tags. But they do it anyway. They drive old cars and if one of them gets pulled over and busted for the illegally transferred plates, they just abandon the car, get a new fake ID, and another car and carry on. Almost none of them use their real names, they have all sorts of aliases and only their close friends know their real names. They can go to the MVA here and get a drivers license with no papers at all and they just use an alias, while anyone here legally has to have all sorts of ID and documentation proving who they are and where they live.

      1. And one day they will hit your car, and have no insurance.

        And then you will realize they are bothering someone.

        I wouldn’t care if the rule was that citizens can also have no insurance, but that’s not the situation now.

        I understand a libertarian who wants open borders, but right now we do not, and the voters have not agreed to that, so right now, the rule of law should stand, no?

      2. Why can’t people here legally also use aliases & fake paper?

    2. “They cause less crime than comparable native-born Americans”

      All the studies I have seen that show this qualify it with the observation that illegal aliens cause less crime than native-born Americans–of the same income level

      The studies also show that the trend goes more towards the American mean with every generation. First generation immigrants cause much less crime than native-born whites with eighth grade educations of the same income level. Second generation immigrants cause more crime. By the third and fourth generations, the difference disappears as the immigrants become increasingly Americanized.

      So there are two question here:

      1) Do illegal aliens cause less crime than average Americans or do they cause less crime than Americans of the same income level?

      2) What about birth rates? The birth rate of Mexican immigrants (and subsequent generations) are double what they are for native born American citizens. Mexican immigrants start having them younger, too.

      If Mexican immigrants’ children are committing crime at a rate a little better than native-born Americans with an extremely low income level–and the immigrant child population is growing at double the rate of the native born–then doesn’t that necessarily mean they’re contributing significantly to the overall average rate of crime?

    3. “This one again. I remain unconvinced that illegal cause less crime than native-born Americans. I just haven’t seen a study that is worth a damn.”

      Another complicating factor is that a small percentage of the native-born commit a vastly disproportionate amount of the violent crime, skewing the statistics.

  21. While I don’t support Cruz’s immigration plan, I also don’t believe he would actually deport 12 million people as President. Deportations might tick up, but I’d bet they’d be focused on illegal immigrants who commit actual crimes. I also, think it’s ridiculous to suggest libertarians must support open borders. While I favor a far more immigrant friendly immigration policy than our current one (in particular, with regards to H1-B visas), I’m under no illusion that the US could handle the flood of immigrants that would arrive if we eliminated all restrictions on immigration. Cultural assimilation takes time (generations) and it won’t occur at all unless native born citizens constitute an overwhelming majority of the population. I think Nick is flat out wrong to call conservatives’ worries on that front baseless, given the strong liberal push in America and Europe to divide people by race and religion and to ignore unsavory behaviors that undermine the liberal multi-cultural narrative.

    I support Cruz because, at least on government spending, taxes, and regulation, I think he’s the most libertarian candidate in the race. Even if I believed he planned to carry through his proposed immigration policy, I’d still support him because – frankly – immigration policy is far, far, far from my number one concern.

    1. I’m with you hroarc, on both Cruz and illegal immigrants.

      I think your post was well put. I think that most libertarians here were formerly proggies so on tough issues they are more likely to revert back to that line of policy thinking.

      I’m kind of the opposite so my tendencies are more towards the republicans on the tough issues.

  22. Is this really something that libertarians can or should get behind?

    No. I have affixed my “I’m Ready for Hillary” sticker on my car. I have given up. I have surrendered.

    1. “I’m Ready for Hillary” sticker

      Comes free with rubber gloves and Astroglide.

      1. Well, sure, if you spring for the deluxe version.

        1. You can’t make the sticker stick with Astroglide.

  23. Oh, of course, Kim Davis turns out to be relevant to everything.

    “Oh, but that was just the Supreme Court overruling elected legislators, right? Well, it’s still the law. ”

    OK, so if the Supreme Court orders a sheriff to confiscate citizens’ guns, that would be “the law,” too?

    Or should we be willing to entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court might sometimes be wrong?

    Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that the Supreme Court can be wrong.

    If the decisions of the Supreme Court were always “the law,” then we would still be governed by a 1971 decision rejecting a right to gay marriage.

  24. Cruz has no chance anyway. The Donald is going to schlong him and everyone else. Check this out, it’s an everyday thing now:

    Dems defecting to GOP to vote for Trump

    About 1,000 Democrats in Mahoning County so far have switched their party affiliation to Republican with election officials saying several did it to vote for Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner. – See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2016…..sLVL2.dpuf

    The dems who are going on about wanting Trump to win the GOP nom because Hillary is going to beat him had better be careful what they wish for. I’ve had several life long Dems tell me they’ll switch parties and vote for Trump if Hillary is the Dem candidate. And like in that article, this is unprecedented as far as I can remember, I’ve never seen it before. I know there’s all this talk about Reagan Democrats, but that was a long time ago.

    1. Yeah, the pending Hillary v Trump throwdown is going to be epic. Dirty tricks galore. Venomous hatred. Masks will be discarded en masse. Libel, slander, lies, insults. It will be political savagery like we haven’t seen in awhile.

      I can hardly wait.

      1. Are the Amish hiring? Asking for a friend.

        1. I can do the manure-shovelling on their farms if they protect me from the news.

        2. I think you have to marry one of their wiminz and join the tribe. I hope you don’t mind unshaven legs.

          1. Not a problem. I’ve never shaved my legs, so keeping on not shaving them doesn’t bother me.

            1. I wasn’t referring to you, silly, but the unshaven beast that you will lie with!

              1. Shave or not. I don’t care.

                http://iheartingrid.wordpress……-mcgillis/

                1. Why is it that I’ve decided to not click on that link?

                  1. Probably because you are worried about being reduced to gibbering madness?

                  2. Oh, c’mon. Mouse over it. Its perfectly safe.

                    Really, it is.

                2. RC-

                  Did not age well

    2. but that was a long time ago.

      Who are you calling old?

      And is “she” still dead?

  25. Not all libertarians see open borders as the hill they want to die on. What exactly is so perplexing about that?

    1. In particular since, in the context of our welfare state and anti-discrimination laws, “open borders” is very far from libertarian positions. That is, in the current system, both “open borders” and “draconian immigration enforcement” are wildly incompatible with libertarian principles.

  26. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

    “Which is to say the ultimate question in front of us, especially in election seasons, isn’t whether something is the law but whether the law is right or not.”

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you ? where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast ? man’s laws, not God’s ? and if you cut them down ? and you’re just the man to do it ? d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt

    1. Incidentally: Mises: “Fiat iustitia, ne pereat mundus.” See rule utilitarianism. High level, here.

  27. Since there is literally no one who is suggesting making all forms of immigration legal, it’s a bit of a moot point, isn’t it? Hell, the main difference between Cruz and Rubio/Trump is that he doesn’t want to make a pathway to citizenship — all of them want to beef up border security and (at least, circa 2015) are against illegal immigration. The Democrats are not a whole lot better, except in that they have some groups of illegals that they’d like to have vote and receive welfare so as to strengthen their electoral hand.

    Exactly what new information does this communicate and why are we pretending that ICE raids, 4th Am protections stopping at the border, etc. would stop happening if amnesty were granted?

    1. Ted Cruz campaigned earlier this season saying that he would not send “jackboots” to every door in America rounding up illegal immigrants, as Trump calls for. But now he doesn’t want to sound softer on immigration than Trump is, so he calls Trump’s plan amnesty and tries to dodge questions about whether he actually will or will not be sending those jackboots around.

      Of course, Nick’s post didn’t really give that much context so I can’t blame you for not knowing it.

    2. There’s only one way to stop mass immigration and that’s to turn the USA into a 3rd world country so no one will bother coming. Don’t worry, our fearless leaders are hard at work on that.

      1. E-verify

        /thread.

        1. What does E-verify have to do with immigration? There are already laws to stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants, but they do it anyway. E-verify is useless when you don’t use it because you know the person you’re going to hire is here illegally. E-verify will not change anything.

      2. Feel the Bern?

  28. Does anyone believe this would not be massively disruptive, not just to illegals (including their often-fully legal children) but to tens of millions more law-abiding citizens and aliens?

    It might be. But totally worth it.

  29. How is this even “the biggest issue of 2016”? It’s not even in the top 10. One gets the feeling that the media are deflecting again.

  30. Gillespie doesn’t believe in the rule of law.

    Amazing.

    Teddy Roosevelt enforced unpopular beer laws in NYC.

    Why?

    That was his job. He said if its a bad law, change it.

    So, Nick – change it. Don’t just decide which law you will ignore.

    Ignoring laws and selectively applying them is very un-libertarian.

  31. Video – However, after conducting a nationwide investigation that took her to the frontlines of this crisis, Ann Coulter has come forward with alarming evidence that proves the true number of illegal immigrants who have crossed our border has exploded past 30 million. And it could be as high as 60 million people.
    http://conpats.blogspot.com/20……html#more

    1. Ann Coulter: “I’ve Stumbled Upon a Massive Cover Up”

  32. I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump.

    More like a wildly unpalatable alternative to those who are incapable of voting LP or refusing to vote.

    Even worse is better than more worse.

    1. Every candidate who has a likely shot at winning the election is objectionable to libertarians on some issues. The question about which candidate is more palatable is which set of issues is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. For Gillespie it seems extreme pro immigration is his single issue, but it should not be perplexing to him that others value other issues more.

  33. “I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump. ”
    I would say a moldy half eaten turnip is a palatable alternative to Donald Drumpf.
    Arguing for Ted Cruz is less pointing out his benefits but rather the horror that a Drumpf presidency would result in.

  34. Ted Cruz is far from perfect. I have a lot of problems with him but they are no where near the problems I have with Donald J. Fascist, who I have no doubt would wind up like Richard Nixon, at BEST. I could be wrong but I don’t think I am. People think he might be a good CEO and while there isn’t a lot of evidence of this, this is about the best thing one can say about him. Being President of the United States of America is nothing like being a CEO. Being a CEO is like being a dictator and if the business is a good business, it might be like a cult. Anyone who likes Donald Trump for President, either wants to see everything burn to the ground, or they have their head up their ass!

    1. If you’re right, then he would greatly eclipse the damage that tricky Dick did to the so-called dignity of the office… whether that’s an argument for, or against, is something left to the reader.

  35. I don’t find open borders and globalism to be especially moving. I care more about Cruz not standing with Apple against the FBI than I do about his positions regarding immigration.

    My priorities:

    – a balanced federal budget and reduction of the national debt
    – a non-interventionist foreign policy
    – protection of free speech, due process, privacy, etc
    – decriminalization of both prostitution and drugs
    – over-the-counter availability of birth control
    – a fair tax plan that doesn’t shift burden to those without children
    – a general commitment to reduce government interference in lives and markets within our country

    1. Well to work theough those items

      – right promises this but never delivers
      – left promises this but never delivers
      – being hurt by both parties, but only the left voted to change the constitution and remove our speech rights
      – well, I do believe we’ll be allowed to smoke pot at the reeducation camps
      – the left will not let women get birth control without government handouts
      – neither will give you this
      – republicans lie about this one, Dems will make you have to fill out contracts to have sex

      Libertarians have lost everything. We have been routed by authoritarians and our fellow citizens who love them.

  36. Nick, you are not a Libertarian either. /Jacket

    1. I can’t wait for Jacket to break out on his own. Maybe a you tube channel.

  37. You can have either open-borders or a welfare-state, you can’t have both.

  38. Nick, you need to get out of that Pew-bubble you’re living in.
    Your cites on crime and jobs are just eye-rollers.

    Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment; as are two generations of black construction workers.

  39. Funny how Gillespie’s discussion fails to bring the Constitution into the subject of if these laws should be adhered to, faithfully.
    But, then again he completely mischaracterizes Cruz’s positions on other legal fronts, too. So, it is to be expected.
    The Constitution gives the Congress the power to make immigration/naturalization laws. The president is required to see they are faithfully executed. It doesn’t say that he must, except if it is “massively disruptive”.
    Kim Davis did not violate any law, because Article 1, Section 1 says only the legislative branch makes law, not the SC. The Congress passed no law saying Kim Davis had to comply with an SC appellate ruling, which should have, at most invalidated the Kentucky law that existed and created a vacuum. In the absence of law, Ms. Davis should have been free to do as she felt her constituents would approve, as her position of an elected representative would dictate.
    Ted Cruz does not say that the current interpretation of the 14th amendment is wrong, just that it should be changed, as he, also says, re: retention voting for SC justices.
    I thought libertarians believed the Constitution to be, essentially a libertarian system of governing – advocating open borders, when the document gives the power to Congress to decide, and they have decided they shouldn’t be, seems contrary to that position.

  40. Rather than focus on the limited short term options, (of which I favor voting Libertarian – and probable Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, is not a crackpot ) the long term solution is to start the arduous process of changing our system of elections to allow us to escape from this duopoly. We need to start at the state and local level to implement changes such as Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation. IRV will eliminate the “wasted vote” dilemma that forces voters to choose the lesser of two evils. Proportional Representation will enable us to actually impact state politics so that voters will see us as smart and effective, and.e enable us to develop a group of candidates for higher offices who have actually legislated somewhere other than a mosquito abatement district. Combined with IRV those candidates will then have a realistic shot at winning on the federal level. It will take 20 years. But if we don’t start now then 20 years from now we’ll be right where we are.now.

    1. is not a crackpot

      Maybe Kush then?

    2. Proportional Representation will enable us

      You can see what “proportional representation” enables by looking at the German parliament: 37% Christian conservatives, 29% democratic socialists, 8.2% communists, 7.3% progressives, and another 8.1% Christian arch-conservatives. In 1933, it was 33% fascists, 20% socialists, 17% communists, 12% Catholic conservatives, 8% German nationalists, and 2.7% Christian arch-conservatives. The fascists got together with the Catholic conservatives and German nationalists and made Hitler chancellor and (a little later) supreme ruler. Proportional representation systems have a lousy record.

      If you want proportional representation or more viewpoints to be represented, you want government to do too much. If the federal government were as limited as it originally was envisioned to be, the differences between all the major US presidential candidates wouldn’t matter much.

  41. I am pro immigration. Deporting 12 million people is or will be terribly disruptive to everyone. That said one at a time, if illegals break our laws – other than the one they broke to enter our country illegally – then send home. The disruption of alien law breakers, we do not need. Why should we expect that all illegal immigrants are equal? They are not.

    1. They break plenty of laws, “other than the one they broke to enter our country illegally”, just to be able to exist here.
      In fact, every second, they break the law that says you may not be here. That’s why a blanket pardon will not have the effect of amnesty, as the progs would love. A pardon cannot extend to future violations.
      Then there is the constant identity theft of using another’s SS number, or the tax law violation of working under the table, or the welfare fraud of obtaining benefits, if they have managed to do that. These are some of the currently unenforced laws that, if adhered to, would result in self-deportation out of a need to survive.
      The fact is, Congress has passed a myriad of laws to attempt to make it impossible to live here, if you have managed to get across the border, without going through the legal immigration process.

  42. I remain perplexed by libertarians who talk about Ted Cruz as a palatable alternative to Donald Trump.

    He is also on the record emphatically supporting the rounding up and deporting of all illegal immigrants?12 million in his count?currently in the United States. He’s even proud to point out that unlike Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, he would not only round up the illegals but ban them forever from becoming U.S. citizens.

    Yay!

    You see, Nick, some people don’t want to live in an eternal Progressive Theocracy, so we don’t want to import millions more votes for it.

    Has this cleared up the mystery for you?

    1. Not yet?

      So I’m curious to get a sense from libertarians, who generally support open borders in goods, services, and people, why they think Cruz’s immigration policy wouldn’t massively empower the federal government to enter all aspects of our everyday lives in a way that would be far worse than simply changing the abitrary status of legal vs. illegal.

      Iphones don’t vote.

      Do you get it now?

      1. Then there is the simple fairness to those who do adhere to our laws, and wait patiently for their legal turn to enter, and there are millions of them.
        Any effort to allow the “line jumpers” to remain makes those who have done the right thing look like fools and will encourage more to break our laws and wait for their amnesty, which must come at some time unless the laws get enforced.
        Usually the choice between enforcing the laws and letting those who violate them obtain a reward, is easy.
        It is very un-libertarian to do something because of “feelz”.

  43. You’re getting ?120 worth of bonuses for just a fraction of that price. Everything to get you started in learning a proven system for accelerating sd your exam success. So if that’s what you want to do, this is the opportunity you’ve been waiting for….

    ==== http://www.alpha-careers.com

  44. “blind insistence that you have to follow the law as written” As opposed to following how you feel the laws should be written? We’re not leftists, nick. The law, the constitution, they mean what they say.

  45. Ted Cruz as libertarian? I think some confuse government with federal government. It’s true Cruz has a more limited view of the allocation of power, but he would allow plenty of restriction of freedom in the state level.

  46. I’m all for open borders, but mass migration with little desire to assimilate, to reap from the welfare state just as that welfare state is about to implode isn’t a very inspiring formula.

  47. Especially from a libertarian point of view, it seems absolutely in error to argue that deporting 12 million people makes sense or is a good use of federal resources.

    Whether it “makes sense or is a good use of federal resources” isn’t a libertarian issue; libertarian political positions aren’t rooted in utility or expediency but individual rights.

    In a libertarian world, governments wouldn’t impede the flow of people across the globe, but individuals would have much more control. In the US, right now, my HOA cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin or numerous other factors. In a libertarian world, we could, and whether we wanted to would be up to us, not the government.

    But that’s not the world we live in. In our world, the implicit deal with respect to US immigration in our wildly non-libertarian form of government is: (1) the government imposes private association on everybody in the country, but (2) in return it gives people the right to decide through the democratic process who actually should be allowed into the country. Eliminating (2) while keeping (1) isn’t “libertarian”, it’s fascist.

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

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.