Donald Trump

The Press Is More Anti-Trump Than It Is Pro Free Speech

How the media stick up for rally protesters whom they would vilify in any other situation.

|

SNL screen cap

My dislike for Donald Trump as a potential president of the United States is second to none, even as I think he is having a clarifying effect on national politics.

Among other things, his and Bernie Sanders' strong showings so far underscore that the major parties are far weaker than they appear. Hooray for that.

Trump is also forcing Republicans to contemplate the stupidity, inanity, and ugliness of their basic ideology. For all the #NeverTrump sentiment among GOP stalwarts, they can't quite admit that Trump isn't stealing their party from them. Rather, he is the perfect distillation of their longstanding sentiments, especially when it comes to immigration policy.

In a must-read piece at Columbia Journalism Review, Bill Wyman—late of NPR, Salon, Chicago Reader, and other haunts of the left-friendly media—points to another way that Donald Trump is causing consternation among a different type of elite.

There's one complicated Media vs. Trump story playing out that's been overlooked. I speak of the media coverage of the Trump protests that have disrupted many of his appearances and, somewhat regrettably, they leave me having to stand up for Donald Trump. Why? Because the First Amendment does not take sides, not even against pumpkin-haired, nonsense-spewing, bloviating demagogues.

Wyman runs through the litany of the dozen or so stories of Trump supporters sucker-punching protesters as they're being hauled away is is egregious, to be sure, but it's hardly goon squad tactics or, as Rachel Maddow suggests, some sort of complicated form of staged violence straight out of 1930s Germany. 

Wyman raises a different point, one that implicates a media that is willing to chew over every aspect of Trump rallies except the notion that "the protesters are in the wrong."

One sentiment you almost never hear outside of Fox News itself was that, by any standard of American political discourse, however objectionable one might find Trump's rhetoric, the protesters are in the wrong. The Trump events themselves are peaceful; they were being disrupted by outsiders making it impossible to hear the candidate that voters showed up to see.

Ah, but what about the protester's free speech rights? Well, what is it exactly the protesters are targeting? These were people coming out to hear a candidate for public office. It's often overlooked, but the First Amendment also protects the rights of peaceable assembly. Again, you can disagree with Trump's rhetoric, but he has a right to share it publicly and those gathered have a right to hear it. A selective enforcement of the Constitution that lets opponents of the speech silence it plainly violates the document's spirit.

I think that's about right. And such an analysis leads directly to Wyman's conclusion, which is about a lot more than whether Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination or not.

If the people opposing him can't get their message out without using anti-American tactics—and if we in the media don't call them on it—we all cede the high ground. Is our democracy so weak it can't handle Donald Trump?

Read the whole thing here.

Gallup

We need new parties in America. Whether they actually take on new names is anyone's guess, but the long-term trend is clear: We're sick and tired of the Dems and the Reps as they currently put themselves forward. Yes, yes, one of them wins every presidential election, sometimes even by more than 50 percent of the vote. But fewer and fewer of us identify as either Team Red or Team Blue because they are awful hangovers (at best) from the 20th century.

None of the major-party candidates has any fucking idea of how to lead America in a 21st century that is already dwindling away. Think of it. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both hate Uber and defend a taxicab system that dates back to the 1920s! This, as we're starting serious conversations about driverless cars, for christ's sake. They're equally as bad on stuff like Net Neutrality, where they will let another ancient and useless Coolidge-era entity control the internet. On the Republican side, you've got clowns such as Trump and Cruz, who have called for the forcible expulsion of 12 million illegals plus as many as 4 million kids who are probably U.S. citizens. They pretend as if such a plan wouldn't necessarily create a "show your papers" police state. The main argument between Trump and Cruz is which one is more serious about not letting any of those deportees back into the country. Each has talked about massive military internventions in the Middle East as if we haven't been there for the past 15 years.

So yeah, we need new parties, or some new wine poured into new bottles at the very least. And we need a new operating system for the 21st century before it's already over. A good chunk of the code for that new OS has already been written, and it's at the heart of Wyman's CJR story: freedom of speech (and assembly, too). Never before has speech been more plentiful and more protected. And more under attack (think the FCC, calls for ending Citizen's United, trigger warning, microaggressions, you name it).

But because the media's business models (which in many ways were predicated upon being able to monopolize speech both through market power and government regulations) are breaking down, we have a media that really doesn't understand the centrality of speech to everything good and decent to the American Experiment. Instead, you get reporters who wear their preferences on their sleeves and no longer understand (if they ever did) that free speech takes no sides.

NEXT: Utah Governor Signs Resolution Declaring Porn a 'Public Health Crisis'

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. Don’t tell this to Republicans. They are convinced that Trump only is getting votes because of all this free media coverage. The fact that the media has covered him for the single purpose of destroying him doesn’t seem to matter. He got billions billions of dollars in free coverage and that is why their sorry ass candidates can’t seem to put him away.

    1. They are convinced that Trump only is getting votes because of all this free media coverage. The fact that the media has covered him for the single purpose of destroying him doesn’t seem to matter.

      Well – that is not really a new phenomenon, is it?

      My trump supporting friends like him precisely because of the negative press he gets: “he’s pissing off the right people.”

      I think had Trump not gotten so much press and instead had been ignored like Gary Johnson, and hadn’t done anything about it, he’d have low numbers. The press can trash talk him all they want, but to critique him they have to show video clips. And those video clips attract supporters.

      It’s like a flyer I was mailed by some candidate in a congressional election a few years back. He basically laid out all the awful positions his opponent had; and I liked those positions so much I voted for the opponent!*

      *this was before I accepted Rothbatd as my personal lord and savior 😉

      1. Sure but that doesn’t excuse the sorry performance of his Republican competitors. If Trump is so bad, what does that say about the other candidates’?

        The reason why Trump got so much coverage is because he was great at attracting it. That is a valuable political skill. The fact that the other candidates were unable to do the same just says they are shitting candidates who lack the media savvy necessary to be successful.

        1. That is a valuable political skill. The fact that the other candidates were unable to do the same just says they are shitting candidates who lack the media savvy necessary to be successful.

          I disagree. I think it means they are *shitty* candidates who lack the media savvy necessary to be successful. 😀

      2. “for the single purpose of destroying him ”

        I don’t think they want him destroyed. I think they want him to win the GOP nomination which will then
        destroy the GOP and allow Hillary to waltz to victory.

        1. I don’t see how you could say that, unless they are smart enough to think by attacking him they make him more popular with the GOP and I seriously doubt they are that smart.

          1. i’m not sure they are that smart, but it does fit the brand of “two birds with one stone”. they are increasing his popularity with the more radical and disenfranchised parts of the GOP… but they are making him look terrible to the 60-70% of people who don’t fall into that category. in the most republican states, he is fighting for 50% of the 30% who are registered as republicans. candidates in America get nominated by a majority of a minority, but the general election brings the majority of those registered as independents into the equation.

            they would do the same if the eventual libertarian candidate gets more notice. for instance, they would repeatably harp on the drug policy (they would emphasis heroine, not marijuana…. except maybe for GJ, where it would all be about him saying he smokes it plenty). they know that this would bring more support, from those who agree… but they bank on the idea that more people would be definitively turned off, than turned on. (would be interesting to see exactly how they go after libertarians, since we don’t fit the normal attack talking points…. they have only had to cry “anarchists” in the past)

    2. I’d say the media is conflicted.

      Covering Trump is profitable – so over and above and ideological opposition, the media is going to want to give him attention.

      At the same time, they don’t want Trump to be elected President. So it’s a delicate balance.

      Add to this the fact that media people are dumb, and aren’t too good at subtlety, and it isn’t hard to see how they can play into Trump’s hands even when they think they’re trying to stop him.

      Plenty of viewers see through the “clashes with protesters” stories and realize that the context is that there are people trying to disrupt the rallies and violate the Trump supporters’ freedom of assembly and speech.

      If the media *really* wanted to hurt Trump, they’d ignore him, but that would damage their bottom line too much.

      1. “If the media *really* wanted to hurt Trump, they’d ignore him”

        Exactly like they did with Ron Paul last time around. So it’s not like they don’t know how to go about doing that.

    3. I think the free media coverage IS actually helping Trump, to some extent. I think the media has tarnished its own reputation to the point where waging an open war against a candidate actually builds support for that candidate.

      1. I think you are right about that. But the media didn’t realize that.

        1. Oh yeah, of course they don’t realize it!!

          They’re starting to loose tons of the power they once wielded to the internet and social media. But they’re delusionally holding on to the idea that they still live in a world where people believe what they tell them. They certainly THINK they are helping take down Trump.

          But Trump is pretty skillfully using them to his own ends. Hell, he turned one of the early Republican debates into a huge segment of Republican politicians bashing the media, broadcast by the media. He’s set up mistrust of the media from the start, so that their negative publicity becomes positive publicity for him.

  2. So he’s pointing out there’s a media bias, what, 60 years late?

  3. Somebody’s never read the Denver Post.

  4. Somebody’s never read the Denver Post.

    1. Somebody forgot to genuflect before the Squirrelz again this morning.

      You’d think as a fellow member of Rodentia they’d be more forgiving of you, but apparently they’ve decided to make an example.

      1. They hates us, precious.

  5. My dislike for Donald Trump as a potential president of the United States is second to none,

    Is he the candidate for the “The Above” party? What makes none so bad? I’ve considered voting for none of the above, to be honest.

  6. If the protesters were showing up to disrupt Bernie rallies, the media would be vilifying them.

    1. No kidding. The contrast is stark, and ugly.

    2. The interesting thing is that there have been events where Trump supporters started the violence, and there have been events where Trump protesters start the violence.

      If you look at media reports, they spin the former by emphasizing the fact that Trump was responsible. “Trump supporter charged after sucker-punching protester at North Carolina rally”. Every event where violence was initiated by protesters makes the headline ambiguous, as if violence just “broke out” with no side specifically at fault and the identities of those arrested unclear. “Violence Erupts at Donald Trump Rally in St. Louis; At Least 32 People Arrested”

    3. They were neutral when BLM went after Sanders. And supported the “Bernie doesn’t care about black people” meme to this day.

  7. Among other things, his and Bernie Sanders’ strong showings so far underscore that the major parties are far weaker than they appear. Hooray for that.

    Yep, the real popular support seems to be for a fresh new authoritarian dictatorship rather than whatever the status quo is.

    ?\_(?)_/?

    1. I see that you have mastered the proper position to be in, as you are marched into the camp.

    2. Shut up, Xeones. It’s not coercion, it’s democracy.*

      * I actually heard a woman say this at an Oxford Union debate once.

      1. “‘Shut up,’ she explained.”

  8. And the media believe in the freedom of the (professional) press, not free speech. They don’t want you to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  9. “One sentiment you almost never hear outside of Fox News itself was that, by any standard of American political discourse, however objectionable one might find Trump’s rhetoric, the protesters are in the wrong. The Trump events themselves are peaceful; they were being disrupted by outsiders making it impossible to hear the candidate that voters showed up to see.”

    Sure, but the protesters are also hilarious losers who almost make me support Trump fans calling them cucks, so it’s still kind of worth it.

    “YOU’RE A FUCKING WHITE MALE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME”

    1. That video just drained the life out of me.

    2. Sometimes it’s shockingly difficult not to slide into a mindset of “I hate those fucking people most of all, so Trump might not be that bad after all” The allure of someone pissing off the right people is strong…..and then I just have to read what Trump’s policy positions (if you can even call them that) are, and I snap right out of it.

      Still, yeah, fuck those fucking people.

    1. Trump and Trump! What is Trump!?

      1. Clubs and I bid 6

  10. ICYMI, there are other big juicy stories the lame-stream media for some strange reason don’t seem to want to sniff out. I’m sure there’s a joke hidden in there somewhere but I can’t seem to quite put my finger on it.

    1. Is it all just a hoax so they could use those lame double entendres?

  11. “Is our democracy so weak it can’t handle Donald Trump?” Why yes, yes it is.
    Precisely because it *is* a democracy, rather than a democratic republic.

    Has been for years and years. This isn’t exactly new news.

  12. it is the medias tactics that are helping Trump. When someone is hated so much just because he is different good American’s come to their support.
    for those who haven’t figured out why the left hates Trump so much its not his policies its his tactics he is using Democrat tactics how is that. the left always calls anyone and everyone running on the Right a liar that is their hole tactic they call them liars and crooked and evil, they never show proof they just make accusatiosn. that is exactly what Trump is doing to everyone else and its working he is just making accusations against anyone who is against him. this should leave the left trying to find a new stratagy but all they can do is make more outragious accusations like call him hitler and racist oh thats right they say the same thing every time.

  13. …his and Bernie Sanders’ strong showings so far underscore that the major parties are far weaker than they appear. Hooray for that.

    So as long as the GOP and the Dems get eviscerated, we’re fine with Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot rising to power? There are worse things in this world that a Republican or Democrat establishment candidate, and one of those things is the television show Fear the Walking Dead.

    1. Hitler and Pot can’t rise to power without the aid of the Legislature, which will still be controlled by the Establishment post-election. Who cares if Sanders wants to legislate free college or Trump wants to fund building a wall?? Without the support of the Legislature (which is hostile to both) neither will happen. If Sanders or Trump try to resort to executive powers to push their agenda, the Legislative Branch might actually seriously consider trying to limit, check, and balance the power of the executive branch, for once. Four years of the Establishment working together to fuck us all, or four years of Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot and the Establishment spending so much time eviscerating each other they don’t have much time to bother us.

      1. …the Legislative Branch might actually seriously consider trying to limit, check, and balance the power of the executive branch, for once.

        You know this is where your argument breaks down.

  14. 42% of the country belongs to the American Independent Party? Wow.

    1. With the symbolism typically attributed to the number three…

      You’re saying…

      Trump is God??

      That’s a scary thought.

  15. Wyman runs through the litany of the dozen or so stories of Trump supporters sucker-punching protesters as they’re being hauled away is is egregious, to be sure, but it’s hardly goon squad tactics or, as Rachel Maddow suggests, some sort of complicated form of staged violence straight out of 1930s Germany.

    A dozen or so? I’ve heard of one singular sucker-punch, that is unless every instance of punches thrown constitutes a ‘sucker-punch’.

    1. There was the one guy getting punched, and that fat girl getting pepper-sprayed. That’s about it, I think.

      1. Fat girl that got pepper sprayed did the sucker punching, which led to the pepper spraying, as I recall.

        1. ah yes, you are correct

      2. I can think of three?

        Of course, if you think that heckler’s veto protests are illegitimate and should be shut down immediately, the only thing to argue about is whether attendees are allowed to shut them down, or should wait around for a cop to do it.

        1. Judge Napolitano wrote an article on this about a month ago:

          Trump rally violence, the First Amendment and ‘the heckler’s veto’

    2. Wyman runs through the litany of the dozen or so stories … is egregious, to be sure…

      Does anyone here speak Gillespie?

  16. It’s always impressive how Nick tries to present the two parties as equally bad. I know that’s the strategy over here at Reason, and I understand how “a pox on both their houses” makes it easier to convince members of Team Red or Team Blue to leave their team and join Team Libertarian. But sometimes, the task is too difficult for even as expert a rabble rouser as Nick Gillespie. In this case, Nick calls out the Republicans for their anti-immigration stance and war making in the Middle East. On the latter, the Democrats are just as bad, and Nick knows it. On the former, it’s a horrendous generalization to say that Republicans are by and large anti-immigrant, or anti-immigration. Read the Wall Street Journal daily, as I do, to be disabused of that notion. But having said that…

    1. The Democrats are close to nominating a unapologetic national socialist who spent his youth working for the Soviet Union. Sorry but that is orders of magnitude worse than nominating a real estate hustler and reality TV star.

      1. That’s what infuriates me the most. As big an asshole as Trump (or Cruz for the matter) is, Sanders has literally supported some of the most monstrous regimes the world has seen, and yet his supporters come out in droves to support him. The fact that #NeverSanders has not gained notoriety is a disturbing indication of the warped and brainwashed mindset of these individuals.

        1. And advocates repealing the First Amendment. Not just advocates, but has made that one of the major platforms of his campaign.

          1. Christ, and they lap it up because he sugar coats it by saying it is to stop billionaires from financing campaigns. The latest ordeal with the “Bernie is My Comrade” shirt proves that’s a crock of shit. The man is a tyrant, plain and simple.

      2. yeah, I hate when people say “well, at least sanders believes what he says” or some variant. I’d much, much, much rather have another demagogue as president (even if it’s slightly lower-brow demagoguery than usual) than an ideologue with such terrible ideas. The issues that are important to me personally are healthcare, immigration, and the WOD, and all of their positions on all those things are pretty much diametrically opposed to mine (at least 165 degrees). And that’s not even to mention how badly all of them want to destroy our economy, or dealing with the whole new world computing has opened up (uber, silk road, genetic modification, etc.) Id rather throw a dart at a phonebook.

    2. Re: Draco,

      On the former, it’s a horrendous generalization to say that Republicans are by and large anti-immigrant, or anti-immigration.

      Depends on which Republicans you ask. Most are either staunchly anti-immigrant and anti-trade or are somewhat sympathetic to trade and immigration but still believe in ‘reasonable restraints’, giving just a tad too much deference to the wisdom of government bureaucrats. Those of us who advocate for full open trade and free markets are too-commonly labeled ‘liberals’ by comment posters in Townhall, Breitbart or the Daily Caller.

      1. Maybe I’m living in the past. I have to admit the rise of certain strains of knuckleheads on the right has been kind of depressing and hard to entirely overlook. *My* Republican party could never be anti-free-trade. Makes no sense whatsoever. It’s an idiot’s position.

        1. Buchananite protectionism is currently growing in popularity in GOP/rightist circles.

        2. This is why I completely gave up on the party.

          I actually had some hope early on when the Tea Party first sprang up and I mistook it for a movement based around the “Fuck you, cut spending!” view of government. But man, is that far from what it turned really turned out to be.

          I’ve come to realize there isn’t really any difference between the modern D’s and R’s. Both are for accruing more power to rule over the masses. Both want to limit free trade and immigration, although they phrase their arguments slightly differently. Both want to do away with free speech when it conflicts with their positions, and neither wants any actual spending cuts unless those cuts come entirely at the expense of the “other side” and not at all from their own interests.

          Even the whole abortion/gun control thing is largely posturing and dog-whistles for their respective fans. It’s actually all about the pols and bureaucrats amassing more and more power and treating everyone else like helpless babies.

          1. I engaged a very involved local D while drinking at a bar watching football. He was enraged by “wildcat” developers abusing the system to build in areas that now need Gov services (fire, sheriff, EMS, etc.) and he was upset that they are not paying their fair share, forcing him to pay more by default. For about 10 minutes I actually tried to point out the irony, but he could not fathom. He just kept saying that we need more rules to make sure this kind of thing wouldn’t happen. Isn’t this the definition of insanity?!?
            Toward the end of the game, guy to my right (ancient R from back in the day) chimed in to tell us how what we needed was to restrict building to certain licensed builders, ipso facto, no more problem! The D agreed and they raised a glass in agreement. When I pointed out that they are different wings of the same fascist party, they were insulted. Moral is, the best government is a dysfunctional one, because when government works, we suffer.

    3. I don’t care if they are euqually bad (whatever that means). They are both terrible and not worthy of any support whatsoever. Republicans are slightly more likely to have a candidate that I could support. But I’ll judge that on a candidate by candidate basis.

      Democrats may have the worse policy positions overall, but the Republican establishment mostly agrees on substance and is terrible at stopping the things they disagree with.

      So I’m going to stick with pox on both houses. It doesn’t require that they be equally bad, just that they are both really, really bad.

  17. …Even though I am pro rational immigration (we need the best people to come here), I can understand those who see the reality of our immigration mess and react with “expel the illegals.” Republicans generally have a greater respect for the Rule of Law concept than Democrats do, so they get more disgusted than Democrats do when they see illegal immigrants with drivers licenses collecting government goodies.

    A nation does, after all, have the prerogative to forbid entry to non-citizens, or to expel non-citizens. Without that ability, a nation cannot exist as a nation. So, if you are a libertarian and believe that a woman has the right to expel a fetus from her body even though it will die (and I’ve been around libertarian circles for decades, and have seen that argument over and over), then surely a nation has the right to expel non-citizens (where in only a few cases that would lead to death or persecution), or to not allow them entry in the first place.

    1. I have never met a single person who supported open borders who in any way suffered the negative consequences of it. It is never their kids whose schools are overwhelmed by non English speakers or who have to compete with illegals for jobs or their neighborhoods that are turned into slums. It is always about expecting other people to sacrifice for what they see as the greater good.

      1. “who have to compete with illegals for jobs”

        Maybe you just don’t deserve your job. Hell, I compete for my job. Plenty of immigrants in the tech industry. I deal with it by working harder for my job. I’m not about to cry to some government regulator to protect me from free market dynamics, because unlike you I’m not a socialist scared of market competition. Frankly, if you suck at your job so much that your boss would rather hire someone who can’t even speak the common language, you’re a shitty worker and don’t deserve what you have.

        “or their neighborhoods that are turned into slums.”

        I have no say with what my neighbors do with their property. You have no say in what your neighbors do with theirs. This is how PROPERTY RIGHTS are meant to be, fucking deal with it, stop complaining for government intervention in private property management, you damn socialist.

        “It is never their kids whose schools are overwhelmed by non English speakers”

        Can’t imagine why you even give a fuck. Oh noes!! Kids at the school my kids go to are SPEAKING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES!!!!! Won’t someone think of the children?!?!

        1. Can’t imagine why you even give a fuck. Oh noes!! Kids at the school my kids go to are SPEAKING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES!!!!! Won’t someone think of the children?!?!

          I usually find myself agreeing with your comments, but on this one I’m calling bullshit.

          Unless you’ve lived on the southern border, you know nothing of the social and financial costs of massive illegal immigration. The areas are typically poor because the immigrants are poor and they demand lots of public assistance. The schools have to supply a parallel curriculum taught in the common language of the immigrant’s children. Hospitals, clinics and other public services are inundated by indigent immigrants which requires heavy taxes that will not be spent on infrastructure, which contributes more to the impoverishment of the area. The low-skilled work force leads to low end manufacturing and other business which cannot attract the kinds of people who would be able to pay the taxes needed to support the immigrants. I could go on, but I hope you get the idea that massive illegal immigration is a net cost–and a high one at that–for the communities that bear the burden.

          John is right. Those who champion open immigration are not the ones who bear the costs. I’m very much in favor of increased legal immigration but I’ve seen what illegal immigration does to the southern border towns–having lived on the border for over twenty years–and it isn’t pretty.

          1. So much this. I’ve lived the last 8 years within 90 miles of the border with Mexico. The idea that significant numbers of illegal immigrants don’t impose heavy costs can only be held by people who have no first-hand experience.

            And those burdens aren’t because they are illegal, either. Those burdens are because they are impoverished, low-skill, literacy optional. Legalizing them won’t solve these problems. To the extent that it opens the door for more, and makes them all eligible for over-the-counter welfare, it will make them worse.

            1. I’ve heard that if you apply for welfare in Hawaii, they will offer you a plane ticket to teh mainland. Why can’t we do this with immigrants?

              It doesn’t seem like it should be so politically difficult to say no welfare for immigrants on temporary work visas. I guess some on the left think they can cultivate new voters that way or something.

              Another thing that would help would be to make it easier for immigrants to be employed legitimately, then they would pay more taxes and pay for their own government services. I think that current immigration and employment policies are doing a lot to keep recent immigrants poor.

              1. I think the problem is less the welfare illegals consume than it is the welfare they vote for (and not necessarily for themselves) once they stop being illegals.

                Get rid of the welfare state and many of the issues go away. But that’s about the last item on the agenda for true libertarians like nicky.

          2. Sounds like the problem is not the immigrants but the local governments and federal immigration policy.

            Obviously cutting public services is a big political mess. But if people were allowed to cross the border easily to work either daily or for a longer stay I think you would see a lot fewer people piling up along the border, a lot more people would only come temporarily to work.

            So while in principle I am for open borders, I would find allowing in anyone who can demonstrate that they have a job or a place to stay waiting for them. Most come to work and many would be happy to take the money they make back home if coming back again later were a simpler proposition.

            1. Sounds like the problem is not the immigrants but the local governments and federal immigration policy.

              Absolutely. The immigrants are not really the problem. The problem is that they are in a constant state of limbo. They can get state welfare but cannot easily get good jobs. Being stuck in the employment black market prevents them from moving into better jobs.

              But if people were allowed to cross the border easily to work either daily or for a longer stay I think you would see a lot fewer people piling up along the border, a lot more people would only come temporarily to work.

              I agree with this wholeheartedly. Many of the people crossing the border on a given day are merely going to work or to shop. If more permits were available, they could come out of the shadows and the whole economy would benefit.

      2. Yeah. Back when I lived in South Florida, I was soooo resentful at being denied the chance to work such jobs as a roofer, or palm tree trimmer, or orange grove picker in the middle of July or August when it was 95 degrees with 90% humidity and the 4pm-on-the-dot thunderstorm and intense tropical downpour was about to start. Thanks to those (mostly) illegal Spanish-speakers, I was forced to tough it out in plush air-conditioned offices all day long because they had stolen all the good manual labor jobs.

        That’s when I came to realize those guys were such a bunch of bunch of lazy welfare queens. Rrrrriiiiight.

        And for the record, my kid attended schools where they had ESOL classes. Of course, I was properly horrified! I mean, if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me and my kid!

      3. I have never met a single person who supported open borders who in any way suffered the negative consequences of it

        True. We’ve never met, but maybe you should get out more. My neighborhood is crawling with these hot-blooded latinos, strutting around in their pickup trucks and flaunting their skilled labor jobs.

        The good news is that The Boy has his pick of exotic feriners to choose from as girlfriends. The current one is a 5’2″ Filipina who is a knockout. She’s pretty damn good for him too.

        My kids have been in the

        1. Up yours, sqirlz!

          My kids have been in the < 10% minority range their entire lives. They seem fine, except that they can’t beat the kids from the white, west county schools in anything but basketball and soccer.

        2. Again, you didn’t suffer any negative consequences and thus think anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

          1. It’s funny how most of the negative consequences I see in Monkey County are from the native born.

            Maybe that’s the point.

            1. It is my experience that immigrants–illegal as well as legal–are harder working and generally more ambitions that natives. My wife quips that we should keep the immigrants and send the native born away after the third generation. But this doesn’t change the fact that massive illegal immigration loads heavy burdens on the communities where they settle.

              1. And that’s what happens with heavy immigration restrictions.

                It’s impossible to say for sure, of course, but I think a lot of that would improve if people could more easily come and work. It is my understanding that before they really tried to close off the Mexican border, a lot more people would come temporarily to work and then go back home where the money goes a lot further. Now when you have to pay a coyote and put yourself at serious risk to cross, people are a lot less likely to voluntarily return to where they came from.

          2. When my wife and I moved away from the border my salary increased by 30% for even less responsibility.

            I still love the culture along the border–especially the food. But the limited opportunities and general poverty are stifling.

    2. Re: Draco,

      …Even though I am pro rational immigration […]

      So clearly, you’re in the ‘reasonable restraint’ camp.

      (we need the best people to come here),

      I don’t know who are these ‘we’ you allude to. I only know The Market, and no one can presume to know what The Market needs.

      I can understand those who see the reality of our immigration mess and react with “expel the illegals.” Republicans generally have a greater respect for the Rule of Law concept than Democrats do […]

      Indeed? Because the Rule of Law dictates people have a right to a hearing before they’re forcefully expelled from their homes. So far most comment posters at Townhall, Breitbart or Daily Caller seem to think the Rule of Law only applies to red-blooded Americans and not all human beings.

      A nation does, after all, have the prerogative to forbid entry to non-citizens,

      There’s no such thing as a ‘nation’. The ONLY beings that step on this good Earth are INDIVIDUALS.

      But why do I bother? It is clear Republi-rats and Demo-rats are all collectivists.

      1. There’s no such thing as a ‘nation’. The ONLY beings that step on this good Earth are INDIVIDUALS.

        Ah, the doctrinaire “let the sky fall” libertarian. I mention a type of human organization that clearly *does* exist, and am lectured about being a “collectivist” by someone whose argument is that there’s no such thing as a nation.

        Old Mexican, we are allies. I merely accept current reality and chose to work within it. One step at a time. One day there may be no more nations. Today is not that day.

        1. Philosophy is pure. Politics is a filthy sport, full of the sweat and grime of real people. How can you disparage one who seeks the shelter of pure ideology? It is such a pleasing place. Until recently, we lovers of liberty have had the privilege of irrelevance. Now we need to get our hands dirty. This is uncomfortable to some, but it is real, visceral, and exciting. I whole heartedly agree that a deliberate incremental process toward more liberty is necessary. Rothbard and Batman are both heroes, most heroes remain outside the realm of reality.

        2. The only way there are no nations is to replace them with one nation. You tell me which is more collectivist.

        3. Re: Draco,

          Ah, the doctrinaire “let the sky fall” libertarian.

          I’m more of a “Let Man be free!” kind of person, but whatever.

          I mention a type of human organization that clearly *does* exist,

          An organization is different from a decision-making being. You have to understand that concepts like nation or society or even club are meant to facilitate speech and not to describe beings of will. Nations don’t have ‘prerogatives,” for instance. A prerogative is a privilege or a right. Only individuals can have rights, therefore there cannot be national prerogatives.

          and am lectured about being a “collectivist” by someone whose argument is that there’s no such thing as a nation.

          I explained to you why there can’t be no such thing as a nation. Why are you using this to impeach my reasoning?

          Old Mexican, we are allies.

          That’s precisely why I admonish you for your lack of clarity when it comes to principles. If I took you for a troll or a knave I would have ignored you.

          Principles are the foundation of judgment. If you move the foundation, your judgment becomes compromised. Take this as advise.

      2. There’s no such thing as a ‘nation’. The ONLY beings that step on this good Earth are INDIVIDUALS.

        So I guess there’s no such thing as families, corporations, partnerships, any of that. Only atomized individuals, without association with each other.

        1. Re: R C Dean,

          So I guess there’s no such thing as families, corporations, partnerships, any of that. Only atomized individuals, without association with each other.

          When it comes to the discussion of rights and will, indeed there are no such things as families, corporations or clubs. When humans like you or me say “a family decided,” you or I actually refer to the individuals within it, since “family” is a concept meant to facilitate speech, not to confer an organismic quality to the ‘family’ as a separate being with rights above those of the individuals that conform it. Nations cannot ‘decide’ anything or have rights above those of the people living inside the political borders. And neither can nations have ‘prerogatives’. There’s only INDIVIDUALS, the ONLY beings of will, whether YOU like it or not.

  18. The media is really screwed here.

    They cover trump….they get much needed clicks and hits however trump gets popular

    They don’t cover trump…he is less popular but they don’t get the clicks and hits

  19. They pretend as if such a plan wouldn’t necessarily create a “show your papers” police state.

    Well, it wouldn’t create one. We already live in one. Especially for hiring, for the express purpose of screening illegals.

    We are in a serious bind on immigration, IMO. OTOH, we have millions of illegals, to the point that enforcing the law is getting ridiculous. OTOH, amnestying millions of illegals is also pretty ridiculous for a lot of reasons (unless you buy the idea that mass immigration to a welfare state is just peachy, of course). The bill is coming due (again) for our terrible immigration laws and bureaucracy.

  20. Among other things, his and Bernie Sanders’ strong showings so far underscore that the major parties are far weaker than they appear. Hooray for that.

    You know, no one dislikes the major parties more than most commenters here. But when the that which rises from the ashes is Sanders and Trump, I’m not sure I’m ready to say “hooray for that”. It’s sort of like escaping the yoke of Saddam Hussein only to be confronted by the rise of Isis. Not sure many would say “hooray for that”.

  21. Yet not so anti-Trump that they don’t each dedicate around 90% of their airtime or publication space to him.

    1. They’re so anti-Trump, a major American Daily printed a fake edition of itself dedicated to a fictional Trump presidency.

  22. Trump is also forcing Republicans to contemplate the stupidity, inanity, and ugliness of their basic ideology. For all the #NeverTrump sentiment among GOP stalwarts, they can’t quite admit that Trump isn’t stealing their party from them. Rather, he is the perfect distillation of their longstanding sentiments, especially when it comes to immigration policy.

    Going back to the ‘hooray for that’, this is the phenomenon we’re seeing on both sides. It was pointed out the Bernie Sanders is the distillation of Democratic policies. Again, if everything Democrats believe is true, then why not socialism, but mainstream Democrats can quite admit that Sanders isn’t stealing their party from them.

    1. An MSNBC pundit asked DNC Chair and Hilldog shill Debbie WasAMan Schultz a few months back to explain the difference between the Democratic Party platform and socialism. All she could do was sputter a bunch of canned lines about how much Republicans suck. It was a telling moment.

    2. Yes, Trump’s policy on immigration actually is the conservative position, closer to America’s policy for the vast majority of it’s history. As Madison said of himself in his notes of the constitutional convention:

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

      Merit and Republican principles, not statist peasants.

      It’s only in the last 50 years that the Progressive policy of importing statist voters has taken hold, with support from Corporatists and Progressitarians.

      1. Trump is also forcing Republicans to contemplate the stupidity, inanity, and ugliness of their basic ideology.

        Well reasoned retort, Nick!

        You should call them poopyheads too!

  23. Among other things, his and Bernie Sanders’ strong showings so far underscore that the major parties are far weaker than they appear. Hooray for that.

    Libertarian Moment!

    We need new parties in America.

    We are getting a new party. Or an Old Party, depending on how you look at it. Trump is bringing back the Old Right to yet again take up the fight against the Progressives. Maybe we win this time.

  24. On Nick’s articles, which part does Nick write, and which part does Jacket write?

    Who writes the half relevant to the title, and who writes the half selling the Libertarian Moment?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  25. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. BE I am more than sure that you will get best result..H5

    ——- http://www.E-cash10.COM

  26. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  27. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.