Immigration

Immigration Authoritarianism

Trump's pandering to xenophobia is nothing new for the GOP.

|

The day after one of Donald Trump's campaign speeches about cracking down on illegal immigration, National Review columnist Jay Nordlinger, a lifelong conservative who "ceased being a Republican" the moment Trump sewed up the GOP nomination, lamented via Twitter that "people you could never have guessed would be gullible—are. Falling for cons. Re immigration, for example."

But many of the #NeverTrump conservatives currently agonizing over the future of their party are deluding themselves over its past: Republicans have been falling for immigration cons—and perpetrating many of their own—since long before the real estate outsider vaulted to the front of the GOP presidential field by accusing Mexico of "sending" to the U.S. "people that have lots of problems," including the problem of being "rapists." Years after Trump exits the political stage, conservatism's leading lights will need to take a long, hard look at how they deliberately embraced a fact-untethered anti-immigration populism, thereby enabling some of the most authoritarian central planning this side of, well, Hillary Clinton.

So it is that the alleged party of limited government is lining up behind a candidate who, in that August 31 speech in Phoenix, promised government-run "ideological certification" examinations on visitors to the United States. The party of business and trade promises American companies who are even thinking about relocating overseas that "there's going to be a lot of trouble for them. It's not going to be so easy. There will be consequences. Remember that: There will be consequences. They're not going to be leaving, go to another country, make the product, sell it into the United States, and all we end up with is no taxes and total unemployment."

Trump's plan, drawing from such conservative stalwarts as Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and the National Review–published restrictionists at the Center for Immigration Studies, includes forcing more Americans to prove their legal working status by clearing their names through the federal government's e-Verify database of Social Security IDs. A new deportation force would be created, deportees would be transported "great distances" back to their home countries, 5,000 new border patrol officers would be hired and deployed in the field, a biometric entry/exit system would be affixed to each legal visitor to assist in the removal of all visa overstayers, and "extreme vetting" would be applied to foreigners who dare visit the country. And after all that expensive enforcement buildup and activity, somehow (magic?), "We will have a peace dividend to spend on rebuilding America, beginning with our American inner cities."

Trump's draconian solutions were necessary to counteract what he portrayed in the speech as an unrecognizably dystopian America. "We are in the middle of a jobs crisis, a border crisis, and a terrorism crisis like never before," he claimed, warning that "this election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better. I really believe this is it. This is our last time." Especially if we don't block the "Trojan horse" of Syrian refugees from slipping in. Instead of that, "we will build safe zones" for refugees in their own countries, "and we'll get the money from the Gulf States."

How did National Review, which ran a splashy "Against Trump" issue in January 2016, respond to these head-scratching flights from reality? Like so: "The policy was unassailable," declared Editor Rich Lowry. "From an immigration hawk point of view, it is almost certainly the soundest speech ever given by a major-party presidential candidate."

At least give Lowry points for intellectual consistency—a year prior he had urged the GOP to "pander to Trump on immigration," while his magazine editorialized that "Trump's Immigration Plan Is a Good Start—for All GOP Candidates." They're wrong, but at least they've been wrong for a long time. Some of the politicians currently giving Trump reputational cover have no such excuse.

Start with the warm-up act at the nominee's Phoenix speech, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leaned into the assignment by wearing an ugly baseball cap emblazoned with the phrase "MAKE MEXICO GREAT AGAIN ALSO." Trump's speech devoted considerable energy to blasting "sanctuary cities," a malleable term that generally denotes a municipality that instructs its officials not to inquire about or report to the federal government the immigration status of people who come into contact with cops, schools, hospitals, and other organs of government. As one big-city mayor once put it, you need to "protect undocumented immigrants…from being reported to the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city." If residents live in fear that each interaction with a government employee could lead to deportation, they are not going to report crime, seek medical attention for communicable diseases, or send their kids to school.

That big-city mayor was Rudy Giuliani. And one of the reasons Rudy is not President Giuliani today is that Republican candidates and voters punished him for being "soft on immigration." How is it that the man who once decried "the anti-immigration issue that's now sweeping the country," and compared it to "the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement," ended up shilling for the most anti-immigration candidate in modern history? Only he can know for sure. But part of the explanation for a lot of Republicans' whiplashing behavior on the issue is that politicians respond and adapt to incentives.

In August 2007, when Giuliani was in the middle of a year-long, mostly uncontested stint at the top of Republican presidential primary polls, Mitt Romney, then in fourth place, started attacking him. "If you look at lists compiled on websites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," the former Massachusetts governor said at the time. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law."

Romney kept hammering away at the sanctuary charge throughout that fall. By the end of 2007, Romney had caught up to Giuliani-who would exit the race the following month—and was setting his sights on emerging front-runner Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.). "McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently," a December Romney ad charged, with questionable accuracy. "Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security."

McCain would survive the onslaught, but only just. The senator's campaign had nearly imploded in July 2007 over his previous lead role in co-sponsoring comprehensive immigration reform, and it was only after blatantly reversing himself on that and other immigration-related positions that McCain ended up in the GOP pole position usually reserved for the previous cycle's runner-up. The lesson was not lost on 2008 runner-up Romney: To compete in a GOP primary it's best to pander hard to the anti-illegal-immigration sentiment among the conservative base.

Four years later, Romney, who as governor in 2005-2006 endorsed the comprehensive reform packages championed by McCain and then-President Bush, was determined to wage the 2012 primary as the biggest immigration hawk in the field. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry opened up a polling lead in the summer of 2011, Romney repeatedly hammered him for creating a "magnet for illegal immigration" by allowing in-state tuition for illegals at Texas universities. With Perry thus dispatched, Romney out-hawked Newt Gingrich by calling for policies that would lead people to "self-deport." A wound-licking Gingrich later complained that "as a party, we simply cannot continue with immigration rhetoric that in 2012 became catastrophic-in large part because it was not grounded in reality." Yet by May 2016, Gingrich, too, had endorsed Trump.

This kind of naked political cynicism isn't unique to Gingrich, Romney, Giuliani, or even Perry (yes, the guy who once told his immigration-bashing competitors "I don't think you have a heart" has also boarded the Trump Train). As long as there's a conservative market for it—and a market left for conservatism—authoritarian and unattainable anti-immigration politics will be with us long after Trump has gone away.

NEXT: Brickbat: They Got Some Crazy Little People There

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. When talking about immigrants, we need to differentiate between those who follow the rules, want to become “American citizens” and will be faithful to this country, versus ILLEGALS who break the law initially, do not cherish American values and maintain their old culture instead of assimilating. THOSE people are the ones, along with those who overstay their visas. are the ones that SHOULD be deported without question. No amnesty, no sanctuary, no government handouts. End of case without the bleeding heart bullshit.

    1. Muh rules!

      You “follow the rules” types conveniently ignore that the rules are unable to be followed by most of the immigrants in question. This is a mess of your own making.

      Make clear consistent rules that any peaceful productive person from any country can follow, then your argument might have merit. Turn the rules in to a bureaucratic nightmare which mostly serves to protect special interests, then your argument goes in the toilet.

      My take on it is that you’re just using the rules argument to hide your dislike of certain foreigners.

      1. As a libertarian I’m deeply offended when people try to bypass an over-bloated legal system and live their lives according to their own desires. This is deeply contradictory to my firmly held stances and beliefs. The only solution to this is new Agencies with the ability to do check points and demand proof of citizenship from anyone. You see, it’s only a problem if you’re not a citizen, and Libertopia only matters for citizens.

        1. We have Liberty and people want it- bad. If they are not willing to accept freedom, Liberty and free market then we do not want you here.

      2. A Australian guy I knew at a past job trying to follow the rules and work here joked constantly about how he should just cross the border and then swim back in, because illegal immigrants got less hassle than he did trying to follow the system.

        We’ve created a system where trying to follow the rules is discouraged by just how terrible following the rules ends up being.

      3. why is it that millions of immigrants have managed to follow the rules but those from Spanish-speaking nations are painted as unable? You know that America includes millions of Hispanics who have followed those rules, right?

        1. You are apparently unfamiliar with the Papist scares of the 1800s, of all the illegal white immigrants of the 1500s and 1600s, and the very concept of the winner writes the history and rules.

      4. “My take on it is that you’re just using the rules argument to hide your dislike of certain foreigners.”

        Straight outta The New York Times comments section.

        Fucking depressing.

      5. Muh rules are designed to keep out the people who can’t follow the rules, silly. You don’t want rules that keep anyone out, but you’re not honest enough to admit that because you know that most people wouldn’t support the idea of open borders.

      6. You “follow the rules” types conveniently ignore that the rules are unable to be followed by most of the immigrants in question.

        I’m all for inviting people here who follow the law when convenient.

        I doubt very much they will ever choose not to follow the law again once they’re here, because all of the other laws here are very convenient.

      7. “the rules are unable to be followed” is a canard.
        Roughly 1.6 MILLION manage to follow those rules to become, either citizens, or resident aliens, EACH YEAR.

    2. Those damned children who ILLEGALLY set up those lemonade stands SHOULD be fined to hell without question… those slimy, crooked bastards! No mercy!!!!

      1. Work within the system, lemonsqueezers!! The State must have its cut of profits!!

    3. be faithful to this country

      Maybe this country is no more entitled to faith than any other. Maybe this country ought to earn people’s faith.

      versus ILLEGALS who break the law initially

      Everyone breaks the law. Then we check how important they are to see whether it matters.

      maintain their old culture instead of assimilating.

      We will add their biological uniqueness to our own.

      1. If you’re going to quote it, quote it in its entirety:

        We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.

        1. +6,000,000 Peso Man

          1. You know, if you read that in Seven’s voice as filtered through the Greatest Weather Reports Ever, it only gets hotter.

      2. “Maybe this country is no more entitled to faith than any other. Maybe this country ought to earn people’s faith.”

        Clearly, it hasn’t earned yours – kindly relocate to one that has.

        “Everyone breaks the law. Then we check how important they are to see whether it matters.”

        Uh, no. Try that argument next time you get arrested, and see where it gets you.

        “We will add their biological uniqueness to our own.”

        Assimilation and “biological uniqueness” are not related – culture doesn’t follow biological guidelines.

        1. “Everyone breaks the law. Then we check how important they are to see whether it matters.”

          Uh, no. Try that argument next time you get arrested, and see where it gets you.

          Oooh, looks like a blacksmith has kept the irony in a hearth where it burneth bright!

    4. The pseudo-libertarian Crypto-Marxists at Reason do not believe in “rules.” They believe in a sort of quasi-anarchy, where the Globalist criminals can get away with pulling the strings behind the scenes. The phony balonies of Reason Magazine don’t want the “rules” to be written down and enforced openly and subject to public scrutiny through a government. They want control to occur secretly, as in the “occult,” which means “secret.”

      1. Criticize stoopid laws = being a Crypto-Marxian. Got it.

    5. “We”? You got a frog in your pocket or a puppet on your hand?

      The only real rules are self-ownership and non-aggression. Legislation from a coercive monopoly government only serves to reward corruption, which I use in the old-fashioned sense of rotten. I have no more duty to follow legislated rules than the rules of any dictator; tyranny of the majority is no more ethical than tyranny of a single thug. I follow legislation to the point necessary to stay out of jail and keep my possessions, not out of any forced morality.

  2. thereby enabling some of the most authoritarian central planning this side of, well, Hillary Clinton.

    After seeing the comments in Suderman’s VP debate piece, nice work throwing that in. Cheers.

  3. I don’t understand why the United States just fall in line with every other country on the planet. You know, let people travel without passports, or going through customs. It makes me sick that a U.S. citizen can just illegally cross the border to any other country, but some people don’t want to let other people do that here.

    1. Are you joking? Most of the countries require passports or some travel documents to travel around the Planet.

      Americans used to not get a hard time traveling because Americans didn’t usually cause trouble. Americans spend money and usually were not takers from welfare states, so Americans were not a risk.

      1. Your sarcasm meter is broken

        1. That one was right between red and green, so I made a judgment call.

  4. We have to enforce a Rule of Law. The reason that we have such an illegal visitor issue is because we have what foreigners want, including a welfare state and our Rule of Law is a joke. Various Presidents and Congresses talk about solutions to immigration but do nothing which tells a lot about those Presidents and Congresspersons.

    I think Trump does not have any real answer with immigration but he IS actually saying he will do something. Hence, the popularity. We are broken and need our Rule of Law restored, which would apply to everyone.

    There is nothing wrong with demanding that visitors to your country obey laws and get the citizen’s okay to live in your country.

    1. “There is nothing wrong with demanding that visitors to your country obey laws and get the citizen’s okay to live in your country.” Why stop at country? before I move to a state, considering its different welfare laws and economic conditions I should have to get permission from the state, and from my specific neighbors before I use my money to buy a house there.

      What if they feel it’s bad for their culture to let someone like me in?

      1. Sucks to be you I guess. It is their country. They don’t owe you admittance.

        1. So, just to be clear based on arbitrary lines on a map, my right to purchase land and seek work is constrained and up to popular choice. So, at what point do you think the locals should have control of who lives within their proximity?

          1. Arbitrary lines, huh?

            Either you are for property rights or you are not. A Nation’s property rights are integral to individual’s property rights.

            Since this is a Libertarian website, you should know that Libertarians do not advocate telling others how to control their property unless they have violated the few laws that we need.

            1. Couple of things to unpack there.

              First the concept of nation.

              Second is the Nation’s collective ownership of all land within the bounds that have been agreed to by politicians. So, every inch of America is collectively owned by the American Nation and then sold to other Americans only with the permission of the collective nation?

              1. Technically, we just rent it, but without tenant protections from liability.

              2. So, every inch of America is collectively owned by the American Nation and then sold to other Americans only with the permission of the collective nation?

                Pretty much, yeah. “Fee title” has a residual interest in the sovereign. And no, you can’t transfer title (other than with a potentially invalid unrecorded “wild deed”) if the sovereign asserts its rights, generally for unpaid taxes.

                1. You know there’s still a few islands off the coast of Scotland where the landholders have recognized allodial title? Some old nonsense from when they were transferred from Norway to Scotland, and since there’s never been a revolution or overthrow of the Scottish gov’t, the agreements still hold. I think it’s the only place in the western world where clear title to land isn’t held of the sovereign.

            2. You must be new to libertarianism if you think that everyone just blankly accepts the idea of collective ownership. Many would not agree at all that there is any such thing as property rights for a nation.

              1. You must be new to libertarianism

                Purity Test Initiated; Score, 6 Hayeks out of 6, with a Friedman coefficient of 12.456, and a Randian Value of at least Banana.

                1. Without purity tests, how else would we fill our time, smart-guy???

                  1. Dick jokes, recipes, cat videos, pictures of extremely attractive women, pictures of extremely unattractive women, and correcting the staff’s English.

                    1. True. Though I don’t think it’s a purity test to say, “You can’t just assert something controversial and expect everyone to buy in”. It was more a statement of fact than a finger-pointing accusation.

              2. As a general rule, I try not to engage in an argument with anyone here that has the word “constitution” as part of their handle name. I might make an exception to someone named “chipper morning constitutional,” though.

                1. Meh, your loss. I go constitutional all over everyone ass!

                  *Rock, Flag and Eagle!

          2. National borders are no more or less arbitrary than property llines. The borders indicate which set of laws are sovereign in that location so do they have some imprtant meaning.

            Stop using “arbitrary” to run down a concept you do not feel should be important, but has real effect.

            1. My point was to differentiate against the nationalistic claims of ‘natural’ borders.

              So at what level do you think it’s okay to control who may come in and out? only at the country level or would more granular be okay?

              1. So, what you’re arguing for is erasing the concept of the nation state altogether, yeah? I have a feeling your transnationalist good vibes are not going to be reciprocated by other nations.

                1. Nations are imaginary and illusory.

                  States aren’t.

                  I’m just curious where the lines are.

                2. So, what you’re arguing for is erasing the concept of the nation state altogether, yeah?

                  Nation states are just another way of collectivizing. No different than communism dividing people by class, states randomly collectivize people by location. It’s just as absurd and just as arbitrary. I don’t give any more of a flying fuck for the welfare of a farmer in Vermont than I do for a Pakistani peasant, even though I’m supposed to care about the former more because we’ve both been declared subjects of the biggest gang in the land (said declaration conveniently coming from that very gang).

                  That being said, the interesting question is the practicality of doing away with such institutions, which is an entirely separate set of questions from the philosophical construct.

                  1. ^This guy. I like this guy.

          3. Arbitrary, arbitrary… I like that word! When I hear it, I can always conclude I’m dealing with a disingenuous jackass.

            National borders are no more and no less arbitrary than your property boundaries, your alleged “principles”, driving on the right side of the road rather than the left, or these so-called “riiiiiights!” Libertarians are so fond of pulling out of their suppository repositories. Nearly every human institution you can name is based on “arbitrary” assumptions. If you’re declaring borders as illegitimate because they’re “arbitrary”, I hope you’re equally prepared to throw your property, your “principals”, and your “riiiiiights!” under the same bus, because they exist on exactly the same “arbitrary” assumptions that national borders do. Deal.

            1. your “principals”,

              Dany McBride AND Walton Goggins

            2. Exactly. What matters is whether everyone agrees with those “arbitrary lines”.

      2. Luckily, the United States was formed to allow unfettered travel between states. Taxifornia is the only state that thinks it can set up state agriculture check points but they’re “special”.

        Canada is socialist, so we don’t want many of those tools living here. Mexico and all countries south of the USA are typically corrupt and do not have much in the way of Rule of Law, so we need to limit those immigrants.

        As an American, I want a say in how many immigrants come here. Dilute the socialist ideals of immigrants with strong American ideals of free market, Liberty and small government.

        1. …free market, Liberty and small government.

          And the way to protect the free market, Liberty and small government is eliminating choice and competition, telling people what they can’t do because I don’t like it, and hiring thousands more government employees to keep people out.

          I’m just sayin’, maybe we can think this through a little more. There has to be a better way to solve the problem.

          1. You don’t need thousands more government workers, per se.

            If you have no welfare state and Americans do not hire illegal immigrants, then there is no market for them to survive here.

            There are 330M Americans, we would have plenty of choice and competition with people who follow our laws, if we removed the shackles of the Nanny-State.

            If we need more government workers to protect our border, then so be it. Subtract the number from the military because National Defense is the military’s job too.

            1. If you have no welfare state…

              Good things. I like where this is going.

              Americans do not hire illegal immigrants

              And now I do not. Two things.

              Is this restriction on whom one will employ a voluntary choice, or is it Top Men deciding for everyone else who is employable and then enforcing that market limitation through their monopoly on force? I only like one of those options, coz I like liberty and free markets.

              Who owns the job: the employer, or the American Public?

              1. You know what this site really needed? Another quasi-nationalistic paleocon.

                1. You know what this site does not need? Another progressive hiding as a Libertarian.

                  I love America and the Constitution. Its the best setup in the World, when quasi-socialists are not trying to undermine both.

              2. The Volk apparently.

              3. Americans choosing to not hire illegals. Not Top Men. There would hopefully be near zero Top Men.

            2. “If you have no welfare state”

              Indeed!!

              “and Americans do not hire illegal immigrants”

              You need regulations and State employees to enforce that bullshit just like you need it for ANYTHING that goes against a person’s private economic interests. Or are you one of those people who think drugs and guns go away by magic when people make laws against them??

              If Mexicans will work harder than you for less money then Mexicans DESERVE your job, you freeloading socialist. There are plenty of employers with a demand to buy Mexican labor, so clearly there is a market for it, and the only way you can stop that is by clamping down on it with regulations and State enforcers.

              1. Americans just do not hire them. In a non-socialist state where people can hire and fire who they want, you don’t need a bunch of government tools to find drugs and guns. Americans could have as much legal drugs and guns as they wished.

                If Americans were allowed to have firearms everywhere, you need less cops because people can defend themselves and others.

                Americans hiring the cheapest is not necessarily the best. If an illegal is not going to pay our national flat tax, going to not be around for a warranty issue, etc. then why pick illegal workers. In other words, cheaper does not make better.

          2. how do you protect the free market, liberty, and small govt when you ritually import people from places with no concept of any of those things and no expectation that the newcomers learn about them? At some point when you have moved enough people from there to here, here looks very much like there.

        2. I wouldn’t call small government and “ideal” so much as a logical outgrowth of them. At some point, the larger the government, the less liberty you have and the less you have a truly free market.

      3. Maybe you should check that silly Constitution thingie.
        Unless you think libertarians are above abiding by that, too.
        Art. 2, Sec. 4:”The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”.
        As for the national laws on citizenship:
        Art. 1, Sec. 8: Congress shall have the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”
        Bliss must be your natural state.

    2. Wow. Capitalizing “Rule of Law” makes me more respectful of the argument you’re making.

      1. It should because it is the Way it Is.

      2. “Wow. Capitalizing “Rule of Law” makes me more respectful of the argument you’re making.”

        To win an argument after someone pulls that one on you, you have to be wearing a paracord bracelet.

        After that, you can only lose the argument to a redneck wearing a fanny pack.

    3. Your stats are wrong. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than legals, and common sense should make that obvious — they don’t want to get caught and sent back home. They are not eligible for welfare, they pay taxes which they can never benefit from, and the only jobs they can get are the ones legal residents don’t want. Then there’s the fact that if most Americans actually felt the way you do, the illegals wouldn’t find it so easy to get the scut jobs because no one would hire them, and the legals would be happy to pay the exorbitant prices it would take to hire legals.

      Free markets are very honest in results, and society (despite government’s best efforts) reflects a reality in results far beyond what pundits and commenters say society wants. When society wants to hire as many illegals as possible and refuses to do the same work for the same low pay, it tells you that the markets have spoken in favor of as many illegals as possible.

      Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t understand markets, and worse, doesn’t want to.

  5. Trump’s pandering to xenophobia is nothing new for the GOP.

    It seems to me he has been talking more about enforcing existing laws and taking an economic protectionist stance (i.e. influx of low-skilled labor depresses wages, i.e. the same prob. B. Sanders has with immigration) with regard to immigration. The economic aspect is what ‘Reason’ should be focusing on and critiquing. But they never want to fail to imply that The Don is racist. And, in doing so, prove no better than the rest of the dishonest media.

    1. But they never want to fail to imply that The Don is racist.

      I think it must be hardwired.

  6. If residents live in fear that each interaction with a government employee could lead to deportation, they are not going to report crime, seek medical attention for communicable diseases, or send their kids to school.

    Sorry Matt, that is a complete load of shit and frankly racist. What we are talking about here is having the police turn people over to immigration if they are arrested for a crime. No one that I am aware of is saying the police should check the citizenship of everyone they encounter. We are talking about people who get arrested, meaning there is at least probable cause to believe they committed a crime being deported if they are here illegally.

    Apparently Welch thinks that immigrants are either are criminals or sympathize with other immigrant criminals so much that they are okay with letting them prey on their community rather than seeing them deported. I don’t know what immigrants you have ever known, but the ones I have didn’t like criminals anymore than I do and would be fine with seeing them deported. I guess reason thinks they must really all be criminals and rapists.

    1. Would people not report crimes because it is a family member and they don’t want them deported? Sure. But they wouldn’t report those crimes anyway because they wouldn’t want the family member in jail either. Basically, the pro open borders people want to make sure that the criminals who do come here illegally get to stay and continue to prey on immigrant communities. I mean what does Matt care if some gang member from El Salvador isn’t deported and continues to run his operations. It is not like that guy is ever going to live in Matt’s neighborhood.

      1. I don’t know about you, but every time I have been the victim of a crime and called the cops, all the cops did was run me for warrants and search me. Didn’t bother with even a single question about the crime. They were there to find an excuse to arrest me. When they couldn’t find an excuse, they left. I don’t see why immigrants would be treated any better. Probably a lot worse.

        1. Running warrants is not the same as checking your immigration status. And if the cops want to check the immigration status of everyone, they could but no one is saying they have to and frankly should not. The point is that you can clean out the jails and deport criminals without making it so no illegal can ever call the cops. And Matt knows that. What he is doing here is creating the false dilemma where it is either do nothing or check everyone a cop ever meets. That is bullshit and forces me to conclude that he wants the criminals to stay here and is fine with the harm they do to immigrant communities. He may not like it but it is a price he is willing to have the victim’s pay for his principles. Very brave of him.

          1. I didn’t get that at all. Doesn’t matter though. Immigration is one of those subjects that sets you off into full retard. Whatever.

            1. And any mention of “the cops” sets you off, in a similar manner.

          2. The point is that you can clean out the jails and deport criminals without making it so no illegal can ever call the cops.

            The problem here is, to get to that – and I don’t consider it an entirely unreasonable position – even you have to part ways from the “deport all illegals” mantra. Even if the cops don’t ask, you can bet it’ll come up if they wind up witnesses in any trial.

        2. Sarcasmic, here’s a hint:
          If you don’t start your interaction with the police by saying, “now that you fucking assholes are here, this is what I want you to do”, things will go much better.
          Somehow, I imagine, there is, also, an early recitation of your story about the after-hours cop party, that you witnessed, and foolishly believe is an example of what “the pigs”, really behave like. Which makes it more likely that they aren’t going to want to be very cooperative.

      2. I’m sure that reason will cover this any day now.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10…..ebate.html

        Not that it’s any big deal, after all it’s only poor immigrants getting murdered.

  7. Problem is, the immigration fear is caused by a false connection to job loss and the New Normal.
    Blame the libertarian establishment who allow it to continue … unchallenged …. just as they allow bullshit like the Buffett Rule, The Great Recession, Bush Tax Cuts For the Rich, Medicare Vouchers, the Illusion of Inequality, etc., etc, etc. Because they’re too busy pandering to anti-gummint rage and Ron Paul’s cult. There is NO current payoff for being pro-liberty. Johnson/Weld have NO policy platform, soi we’re blowing what will likely be our only shot for 50100 years.

    But don’t forget the libertarian moment! Cato says the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians (who are 59% of Americans), So the vast majority of Americans with libertarian views REJECT the libertarian brand, which means rejecting the movement and ideology.

    If we call our majority Nolan libertarians (as Cato defines them), there are 40,000-50,000 of them in elected public office and active in their communities, often as leaders.

    Politics indeed is a lagging indicator. But WHO is driving the greater acceptance oif libertarian ideas in our culture — 59% of libertarians who have 40-50,000 in office and are active in their communities … or 5.3% “movement” libertarians that do nothing, are virtually invisible and are rejected by our own majority?

    Can the movement libertarians catch up? Do the math, The clock is ticking.

    1. What are you advocating, Mr. Hihn? That small “L” libertarians join the major parties and worm their way in positions of influence from within? That the LP disband or go completely radical?

      1. He doesn’t know. His tinfoil is getting thin on top.

        1. DenverJ
          He doesn’t know. His tinfoil is getting thin on top.

          Ooopsie! You spoke too soon.
          Allowing me to humiliate you.
          Again.

      2. (Laughing) You asked that in public?

        What if the libertarian establishment knew what the fuck is involved in the lengthy list that sailed over your head? Buffett Rule, Great Recession, Bush Tax Cuts For the Rich, Medicare Vouchers, the Illusion of Inequality, To clarify, YOU arte totallyy clueless because the establishment is.

        1) Medicare vouchers are fucking stupid. They increase competition in the wrong market! Insurance. Can we affect the automobile market with more competition between Allstate and GEICO? Am I going too fast?
        The PROVIDER market has ALWAYS always had competition. But seniors have no skin in the game.
        So the champion of free markets has the wrong market and SOMEHOW never thought of sklin in the game!
        The anti-gummint goobers see insurance companies and think “privatization,” No. Ask any accountant, Medicare vouchers inset a costly middle-man … in the wrong market .
        Selling across state lines? Wrong market,

        2) Reason, on multiple occasions, in Reasom amd in Decalartion of Independents claim that large postwar spending cuts stimulated the postwar boom.
        a) They lie about GDP growth at 10%. That’s nominal dollars. Adjust for high inflation and GDP DECLINED,.

        Cont’d

        1. 2) Reason, on multiple occasions, in Reasom amd in Decalartion of Independents claim that large postwar spending cuts stimulated the postwar boom.
          a) They lie about GDP growth at 10%. That’s nominal dollars. Adjust for high inflation and GDP DECLINED

          Government spending is a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP?

          1. Government spending is a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP?

            It would likely go up. Government has no resources of its own. It must take them from someone, and this creates opportunity costs. If those resources were left in the economy, rather than being appropriated by government, they would no doubt be put to more productive uses. This would cause the economy, and the GDP, to grow.

            1. a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP?

              It would likely go up.

              Down

              Government has no resources of its own.

              Memorized slogan, misapplied. It’s a component oif GDP. Which also causes the so-called multiplier, also unknown to our establishment (Cato/Reason/Mercatus)

              1. Yes I realize that government spending is a component of GDP. Where does the money come from? It must be extracted from the rest of the economy. What if it was left in the economy? It would most likely be put to better use. Like growing the economy.

                Multiplier? You mean when the government takes $X out of the economy, spends $Y to pay people to shuffle it around, and then returns $X – $Y to the economy? That multiplier?

                1. Where does the money come from? It must be extracted from the rest of the economy. What if it was left in the economy? It would most likely be put to better use. Like growing the economy.

                  GDP measures only specific accounts, not the entire economy. I’ll show you. This may help. During the 1930s, GDP was averaging 9% per year. The highest EVER … during the worst economy ever. Government spending. The accounts to be measured evolved from a paper written by ? John Maynard Keynes! (stop laughing) It’s biased toward government spending. Partly because it was developed to track the effect of massive wartime spending. Friedman fought that battle.

                  It’s the multiplier. Compare two different million dollar dams. One built by govern,ment the other by GM. The entire cost is wages (to illustrate) Both workers consume 30% of income.

                  The government damn adds $1,000,000 to GDP. when the paycheck is cut … as a government expenditure, plus $300,000 in later consumer spending. 1.3 million.

                  Paying the GM worker (with private dollars) adds nothing to GDP from the paycheck, only the $300,000 consumption. 0;3 million.

                  That’s the multiplier. Reality is a lot trickier because trillions of dollars are moving in all directions, at different speeds. That was one TINY component.

                  Does that help?

                  1. So GDP is a bunch of BS. But I already knew that.

              2. So, does that “so-called multiplier” make itself apparent only when the government spends the money?

          2. Government spending is a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP

            I just told you. Who tells Matt, Nick and Mercatus?

          3. Government spending is a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP

            I just told you. Who tells Matt, Nick and Mercatus?

          4. Government spending is a constituent component of the GDP metric. So if you cut spending, what do you think happens to GDP?

            I should maybe clarify. The decline is in the very narrow and direct example. Growth could be occurring elsewhere.

            And that’s why the bullshit postwar boom pisses me off. The economy was a DISASTER. Kennedy’s 1961 SOTU says that our economic growth was among the lowest worldwide.

            Consider. After the war we had the ONLY industrial base on earth. WE had bombed many of our trade competitors!!! So we went from the very top to among he worst in a mere 16 years, perhaps less. That’s mind-boggling The others had to rebuild THEN pass us by.

            I graduated high school in 1960,the year JFK was elected/ My entire formative teens were during the debacle. My dad was laid off and he was a FOREMAN. If my mom did not have a large inheritance at the time, we’d have been “in soup lines” or whatever. We reminisced about it at our first reunion,, at the peak of Kennedy’s boom. It was like a fairy tale.

            The political class is ENTIRELY corrupt..

        2. Part 2

          b) The phony growth was claimed for 1946 and 1947. Why just two years? Wait for it ….
          There were recessions on both sides, 1945 and 1948. Reason breathlessly reports that GDP increased after a recession.! Wait for it …

          Those were the first of FIVE back0to0back recessions. 1945-1961, Wait for it.
          There was no postwar boom It’s a lie both right and left to swindle donors and bullshit their tribes . Progressive say the boom proves 91% tax rates don’t hurt the economy. Reason says massive spending cuss were a stimulis
          Do YOU know tax rates stayed at 91% after the war? Do YOU believe was can have a boom at 91% tax rates???? Do progressives claim we had a boom despite massive spending cuts?

          You should be pissed. If you’re a goober you’re pissed at me. If not, you’re pissed at the establishment .. just like me (in the post you couldn’t read)

          3) Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich? 85% of the dollars went to UNDER $250,000, wait for it ?
          Who were paying only 45% of the tax.

          Lady Liberty is being gang-raped in public ? because nobody is defending her.
          And you’ve been fleeced. Gary and Bill are center stage, frot and center, with NOTHING behind them. Not one single policy solution.

          business cycle dates

          Copyright 1998-2016 by Michael J Hihn All Rights Reserved And DefendedAnd Defended

          The defense rests

          1. Trying…. To… Care….

            Nope. Can’t do it.

            1. BULLY!!!

              1. MINDLESS COPY CAT!

            2. sarcasmic
              Trying…. To… Care….
              Nope. Can’t do it.

              Probably why you made a fool of yourself. Here

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6451375

              It’s okay to memorize slogans and soundbites. But you also need to know where to use each one.
              Stay at the kids table a few more years.

              1. It’s okay to memorize slogans and soundbites.

                Paulistas! Christian Taliban! Cato! 91%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. I’m genuinely curious how one could be ‘Authoritarian’ to a group of people who don’t fall within the legal purview of the government in any real way beyond deporting them or arresting them for actual crimes they’ve committed on sovereign soil.

    Are we throwing them in gulags and hanging them? Shooting them up against the wall? Gassing them? They do not have civil rights in the United States, at least not of the same type a citizen would have. This is because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are legal documents that do not apply to the entire world.

    Philosophically, they apply. Legally, they do not. It would be nice to see people acknowledge that fact since if we attempt to apply it legally to non-citizens you are making an argument that would directly lead to the United States being at war anywhere where human rights aren’t recognized in the same way we recognize them, which if you’ve been paying attention would be most of the entire world including the United States at this point.

    I don’t know why this is so hard for some people to understand, but apparently it’s a common problem ’round here.

    1. They do not have civil rights in the United States, at least not of the same type a citizen would have.

      We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.

      1. So you’re of the opinion we should go to war with Saudi Arabia then, since their populace are in fact humans who are being massively mistreated and their natural rights violated on a daily basis?

        After all, the ‘citizens’ of Saudi Arabia are so oppressed they can’t illegally immigrate here, which is a crime against humanity.

        1. So you’re of the opinion we should go to war with Saudi Arabia then

          Seriously?

          Get back to me when you’ve got something besides hysterics.

          1. I’m not hysterical at all, I’m waiting for someone to acknowledge the difference between a philosophical belief and a legal issue. You are apparently one of the people who can’t discern a difference between the two.

            1. I’m not hysterical at all

              I’m taking it that you missed the reference. Because otherwise you’re arguing that quote is the same as declaring war on Saudi Arabia. And it is really not unreasonable to see why this may come across as ever-so-slightly hyperbolic.

              1. I think I see now. It’s fine for Mexico to illegally immigrate to the United States because of geographic ease-of-access, but since it’s hard for a Saudi to illegally immigrate because of their own sovereign law and geographic distance they have fewer natural rights than countries that border us.

                Is this not what we are saying? If not, why not?

                1. I agree. Let’s invade Mexico instead of some Islamic hell hole.

                2. I want to note something as an aside Hamster, I’m not against immigration and I’m not wholly against even illegal immigration. But it is important to have logical and rational laws on the subject, that are laws so that rule of man does not flourish. The logical and legal inconsistences with open borders is a problem that the proponents of such policy need to explain. The burden of proof isn’t on me in this case, it’s on those who would change the law from how it’s always been since the dawn of law.

                  In my measured opinion, many if not most ‘open borders’ types completely miss the obvious justification for massive war, which has in fact been used by the United States as an excuse for war in the last 75-50 years if not since the Civil War, which makes me think that this is an area where Libertarians are just as guilty of ‘feelz’ as the far left. I haven’t heard a meaningful discussion of those issues yet, and as such my opinion has not been changed legally even though I would entirely agree philosophically. There is a difference.

                  Also note the burden of proof isn’t on you specifically unless you have a rational legal argument, which it would seem you do not have at this time. That’s fine, we can just agree on the idea but not the policy. If there’s a book or news letter that describes these issues that changed your mind, feel free to share it. I would honestly love to read it.

                3. Oh, I am so tempted. Spend the next hour explaining why quoting the opening of the Declaration of Independence without commentary is not, in fact, something only done by the stupid from bad faith. Let me tell you, friend-o, that sounds super tempting, and I’m sure it would be a productive use of my time with a high chance of reaching an accord.

                  1. My example of Saudi Arabia was merely a posit on what a likely outcome would be given a certain interpretation of natural rights. I think that was lost somewhere in translation.

                    I wasn’t trying to say that all men being created equal would necessarily arrive at going to war with Saudi Arabia, merely that certain interpretations of natural rights could lead to that scenario.

                    It’s to illustrate that trying to apply natural rights, legally, to everyone on Earth is a way to guarantee war. Using it as a philosophical guideline to make laws, however, does not necessarily lead to that conclusion even though it could.

                    The open borders proposition, in my mind, means that you are essentially saying that all people everywhere fall under the laws of your ‘nation’ (or everywhere always, to say it differently), which is factually untrue and would directly lead to conflict.

                    I’m not the greatest writer on Earth but I’m not arguing in bad faith here.

                  2. quoting the opening of the Declaration of Independence without commentary is not, in fact, something only done by the stupid from bad faith.

                    THAT is stupid!

      2. We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.

        Which is the absurd string of words the founders ever put to paper. People are not created equal and that actually is self-evident. One must engage in mental gymnastics to conclude that we’re all equals. Some people are born with no arms. Some people are born stupid. Some people are born beautiful with a high capacity for intelligence. Some people are born with a predilection psychopathic behavior.

        Egalitarianism is a misleading and destructive ideology, equality in any sense beyond legal equality, is a delusion.

        1. Created equal in natural rights, not ability. That should also be self evident.

          1. I don’t disagree, that all else being equal, you are born with natural rights. Though some people are born with half a brain and can’t possibly exercise their rights without some kind of trustee, so there goes the right to liberty for that person. Everyone is born with the right to live, but some people are born unable to live without the input of massive amounts of resources, it’s not necessarily violating their natural right to life to not offer up those resources. So yes we’re all born with natural rights insofar as the legal system ought to be concerned, but not everyone has an innate ability to exercise their rights or even to recognize those rights in others.

            1. So I do agree, we’re all born with our natural rights, or perhaps rather a right to those natural rights that may be abrogated pending individual circumstances. Among those rights is most certainly not a “right to free movement” for anyone, except in the case of unowned territory. Otherwise the right to free movement would need to be predicated upon a right to trespass upon private property or to utilize public property, which is a construct of government and since rights do not come from government, and public property almost always involves the theft of private property to create and maintain it, thus making theft a precursor to a natural right, which would categorically disqualify it as a right.

              As a matter of property rights, there are things called “easements” which are about the closest thing to freedom of movement we have, that is to say, in reasonable circumstances you can’t use your property to restrict my access to my property and as for my easement, it only allows me access to my property in such a way that is the least intrusive to your property.

              1. In other words, when natural rights are in conflict they must be resolved with law. Agreed.

                As for the easement argument, I would also somewhat agree and it’s quite possible that such an argument could be used to defend the open borders position. That being said, in my view, work visa’s could be said to be the easement in modern immigration law where you can hire from abroad but only under ‘x’ circumstances and there are hoops to be jumped through.

                I’m not against such a process, in fact I would be for it. But such a process should probably be weighed against other interests such as if there’s overwhelming numbers of black market labor crossing the border, then you need to examine the cause of why they have such a comparative advantage (in this scenario, almost certainly minimum wage laws).

                It’s compelling to me that NAFTA’s losers could be said to be mostly low-skilled workers in both Mexico and the United States (judging by relative top exported goods) which is about what one would expect with more technological innovation.

                The great challenge of the 21st century is how to balance jobs against technology. Eventually, there will come a point where humanity is simply not the most efficient choice in a large amount of industry. I don’t have any solutions in particular, but it’s something that will have to happen. Immigration will no doubt play a role in that as well.

        2. It’s a long sentence, but you shouldn’t chop it up too short.

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

          If you want to truncate it anywhere, it should be here:

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

          The rest of it is an explication on that initial statement.

          1. We do not hold that all men are created equal.

            We hold that all men are created equal in that they are endowed with certain Rights.

            We throw “Creator” in there to emphasize that our rights did not originate with the government, and we throw “unalienable” in there to emphasize that the government cannot arbitrarily take our rights away*.

            *And the government shouldn’t be able to take them away. Our rights can only be voluntarily waived. The true purpose of a jury of your peers (which is not the government) is to determine whether you voluntarily (see mens rea) violated someone’s rights and thereby willfully (see mens rea) forfeited rights of your own.

      3. I don’t assume that truth to be self-evident, in fact, I’d say the falseness of that statement is what’s self-evident.

        But let’s assume I accept it. Does the fact that all men are created equal imply your obligations to all men are equal? Do you owe the same obligations to your neighbor’s children you owe to your own? Do you owe the same obligations to all other men you owe to your husband or your family? Really?

        Perhaps all men are created equal, but my obligations to them are anything but.

      4. We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.

        It’s even funnier if you believe rights are literally God-given!

        1. So which subclass of human should be treated as inferior Mike?

          1. Paulista anti-gummit goobers….you know the class of people I have an irrational, vitriolic obsession with …..duh

            (snorts)

            (giggles)

            (sneers)

            (drools)

  9. “Trump’s plan, drawing from such conservative stalwarts as Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and the National Review?published restrictionists at the Center for Immigration Studies, includes forcing more Americans to prove their legal working status by clearing their names through the federal government’s e-Verify database of Social Security IDs.”

    It isn’t just that I shouldn’t have to ask a government database for permission to get a job; I shouldn’t have to ask a government database for permission to hire someone either.

    I am not here for your benefit. If whom I work for or whom I hire isn’t to your benefit, then fuck you.

    1. One could respond that the rest of us aren’t here for your benefit either so if you inconvenience us, then fuck you right back.

      1. I guess the difference is that I’m not trying to subject you to government approval for getting a job or hiring somebody.

        You see the difference, right?

        1. If you can guarantee that the people you hire don’t import families of welfare recipients along with them, I agree.

          1. I’m not allowed to do anything might adversely impact you in some indirect way?

            You know the problem with that, right?

            There isn’t anything you can do–or not do–that doesn’t adversely impact someone in some way. Every time you decide to buy chicken instead of beef, every day you decide not to fly to Hawaii for vacation, you are adversely impacting someone else in some way. But you should be free to buy chicken instead of beef. But you should be free to not fly to Hawaii for vacation. You should be free to do all kinds of things that interfere with other people’s right to make choices for themselves–and don’t rely on the coercive power of government.

            Meanwhile, you want to use the coercive power of government so that I can only choose to hire certain people?

            Meanwhile, you want to use the coercive power of government so that I can only get a job if I’m on the government’s okay list?

            You see the problem with that, don’t you?

            If you want the government to stop issuing food stamps or whatever else you’re worried about, go ahead.

            Just leave me out of your plans for excellent uses of the government’s coercive power.

            I’m not here for your benefit. If my free choices that infringe on your rights and don’t use the coercive power of government adversely impact you in some way, then fuck you.

            1. “You should be free to do all kinds of things that [don’t] interfere with other people’s right to make choices for themselves–and don’t rely on the coercive power of government.”

              Fixed!

              “If my free choices that [don’t] infringe on your rights and don’t use the coercive power of government adversely impact you in some way, then fuck you.”

              Fixed!

              1. All I said was, hire whomever you want as long as they don’t import more welfare cases.

                1. I’m not importing anybody.

                  I should be free to hire whomever I want.

                  If you don’t like the welfare system, talk to the people in charge of that.

                  Not me.

                  I’m not here for your benefit.

            2. I’m not allowed to do anything might adversely impact you in some indirect way?

              when you knowingly hire illegals and when you are aware of their impact on the welfare system – and the impact that has on me – claiming ignorance seems an odd step. No, you are engaging in an activity that has foreseeable consequences, negative consequences for others.

              1. I’m not responsible for the welfare system.

                If you’ve got a problem with the welfare system, don’t blame me. Take it to the people who are responsible for the welfare system.

                Otherwise, you might as well throw me in jail for robberies I never committed.

                And of you think that there being a welfare system means I shouldn’t be allowed to get a job unless the government says it’s okay because I’m okay on their database, you’re completely out of your mind.

                I shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to hire a baby-sitter, a house cleaner, or a gardener either.

                Sheesh, you people are worse than the global warming people!

                1. I’m not responsible for the welfare system.

                  The rest of us who pay for the welfare system aren’t responsible for it either, but we bear the monetary and societal costs associated with it. Thus, while we are happy for you to hire cheap labor, we don’t want to pay for any additions to the welfare rolls your cheap servants might bring with them.

                  1. “The rest of us who pay for the welfare system aren’t responsible for it either, but we bear the monetary and societal costs associated with it.”

                    Go blame the people responsible for that!

                    I’m not Jesus. I’m not Harambe.

                    I’m not here to die for their sins.

                    I’m living my life for me. I don’t know for sure, but it may be the only one I’ll ever get.

                2. I didn’t say you are responsible for the welfare system, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I said you know the foreseeable consequences of certain actions because there is mounds of evidence and when you ignore those consequences because you’re super special and deserve an exemption, don’t expect pats on the back.

                  The rest is a pile of straw men and more arguments against points that are not being made. The incompatibility of open borders and the welfare state cannot be disputed. As you are fond of saying, the rest of us are not here for your benefit, either, and when your actions impose costs on others, you have become what you claim to oppose.

                  1. “I said you know the foreseeable consequences of certain actions because there is mounds of evidence”

                    Are you people really bewildered by the idea that I might care more about myself than I care about you?

                    I am not here for your benefit.

                    Try to grok that for a moment.

                    1. I am not here for your benefit.

                      cuts both ways, which is a point you are either ignoring or missing, neither of which says good things about you. That you care about yourself is immaterial; that you take action knowing full well that it might negatively impact others is another matter.

                    2. “cuts both ways, which is a point you are either ignoring or missing, neither of which says good things about you.”

                      You really don’t see the difference between me not using the coercive power of government and you using the coercive power of government?

                      You should be free to open a pizza restaurant next to mine and drive me out of business with better service, better prices, and better pizza.

                      You shouldn’t be allowed to use the government to shut me down.

                      If you don’t see the difference between them, I don’t know what to say. The difference is libertarian. People should be free to do things that harm you–so long as they don’t violate your rights.

                      I have freedom of association. If you violate my rights, then what you’re doing is not okay. If you’re using the government to violate my freedom of association by entering people into a government database to determine whether or not I’m free to associate with them, then you’re using the coercive power of government to violate my rights.

                    3. Whether my choices harm you is not the standard. I should be free to drive you out of business for profit and fun.

                      Whether my choices violate your rights is the standard. And exercising my association rights does not violate your rights.

                      If the government is violating your rights through welfare laws or in some other way, go after them. Like I said, if you can’t figure out a way to oppose immigration without violating my rights, then don’t be surprised if I call you out as an authoritarian. That’s what being an authoritarian is: Using the coercive power of government to control other people’s choices and violate their rights.

                3. “Sheesh, you people are worse than the global warming people!”

                  The global warming people just want to make it so the government decides whether or not I can drive to work

                  You people want to make it so the government decides whether I can have a job?

                  1. Are you people really bewildered by the idea that I might care more about myself than I care about you?

                    Conversely, are you bewildered by the fact that the rest of us don’t give a shit about you and are wary of any extra cost and problems you might import and want to eliminate said costs and problems?

                    1. “Conversely, are you bewildered by the fact that the rest of us don’t give a shit about you and are wary of any extra cost and problems you might import and want to eliminate said costs and problems?”

                      You should be free to do whatever you want so long as you don’t violate anybody’s rights.

                      But you want the government to arrest me if I hire someone you don’t like?

                      If you don’t see the difference between not giving a shit about what I want, on the the one hand, and, on the other, using the coercive power of government to violate my rights, then you should join Tony and become a progressive. Using the coercive power of government to violate people’s rights in the name of the greater good is what being a progressive is all about.

                  2. You people want to make it so the government decides whether I can have a job?

                    Have the goalposts gotten heavy yet? Because this was never about you getting a job; it’s about you hiring illegals for work and the potential costs that your doing so may mean for others.

                    1. wareagle,

                      We’re talking about making a database of Americans who are legal to work and letting the government decide who is and isn’t on it.

                      The database can’t be of illegal aliens and be effective. The database would verify that American citizens are eligible to have a job.

                      I would be in that database, and so would you.

                      I know it’s been sold to you as a way to keep illegal aliens from legally working in the United States–but what it necessarily involves is letting the government decide who is and who isn’t eligible for employment. That’s horseshit for a number of reasons–that don’t even have to do with the problems we’ve had with other similar lists.

                      For one thing, it violates my freedom of association rights. My rights don’t disappear just because you don’t like them. Sometimes people criticize me, too bad for me! Turns out they have First Amendment rights whether I like what they say or not.

                    2. A lot of the discussions about employment verification require national registration and/or national IDs. This is exactly what the progressives want. They are just using immigration as a tool to buy votes from happy immigrants, change US voting demographics forever and get ever American in a database.

                      I am against illegal immigration but do not want a National ID or employment verification database. Social Security numbers, Passports and driver’s licenses as National IDs are bad enough.

                    3. Your rights can be, and regularly are, violated, once subjected to “due process”.
                      You can argue that the Social Security system, which is what that database indicates participation in, was passed through unconstitutional means, but the arbiters of that have weighed in and said, it was.
                      Thus, your rights have been through the due process of the legislative efforts of a past Congress and you have had the right of free association, that includes the hiring of one not in the system, removed.
                      There are far too many rights that have been violated, through that due process, but it is what it is. Too bad, so sad.
                      Yeah, yeah: “Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
                      Dude, dusk was a long time ago. Get a candle, or something.

      2. I’M the jerk? YOU’RE the jerk!

        (I love Steve Martin)

  10. I consider myself pretty immigration friendly. But, I do have to say something here. Maybe, just maybe, the siren call of the anti-immigration populists might be a little less compelling if the claims from my allies on the pro-immigration side were a little less disingenuous. Yes, immigrants are less likely to use welfare or be criminals than people in similar socio-economic demographics. But, they’re also much more likely to be in demographics that use welfare and have criminal activity. Yes, economically, immigration is definitely a net positive. But, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t losers. Not everyone opposed to illegal immigration is anti-immigration.

    1. Agreed. Completely agree, in fact, since I was just as closed-borders as John at one point, without opinions against brown people. Would be quite hi-larious if I did, since I married a Hispanic, live near the border and have Mexican nationals for in-laws.

      My problem was the welfare state. Still is. It’s a fairly common opinion, this close to the southern border. Local Hispanics and I were pretty in tune on this one – we had no problems with those who wanted to work hard and keep their head down. But taking our money to give to them? We’ve got plenty ’nuff troubles, go back to your own country and bother those people. When I first showed up to HyR, hearing some of the open-borders crowd argue that closed-borders were just shorthand for racism was obviously not getting traction in Casa de Hamster.

      Someone isolated it out – made it more clear that this was actually two separate issues. Welfare and immigration are only intrinsically tied because our Top Men see a benefit in doing so. Separate those out, and it’s amazing how the objections just melt away to immigrants who want nothing from us but the chance at a productive life.

      1. I think, as well, there is an easy to understand disconnect between the people advocating tightening the border and actively looking for illegal immigrants to deport and the people those enforcement priorities actually impact. If you are a legal resident of Hispanic descent within the 100 mile 4th Amendment exclusion zone, for example, the “papers please” falls on you much more heavily than lily white folks from the heartland. When it seems in theory and in practice that the people who think they are only railing against illegals are rah-rahing practices that fall on brown people regardless of status it certainly looks feels like racism at a checkpoint.

        And, of course, the idea that everyone vocal against immigration is carefully separating legal and illegal is a bit of a joke. As much as some people want to deny it, there really are racists. They aren’t some myth.

        1. True. And the police and justice system in this country truly are corrupted and in need of reform, but that doesn’t make BLM correct about root causes.

          Something can feel like racism without being racist. Sometimes race is just a marker of vulnerable targets. There are racists out, there, this is absolutely true. Sexist bastards are also real. Bad people exist, assholes abound, and yet when it comes down to root causes I persist in thinking it more logical to seek causation in economics rather than the douchebaggery of mankind.

          Taking out the government’s profit motive doesn’t stop racists – the assholes abound no matter what we do – but it solves the other problems so I say let’s start there.

    2. If you read Welch’s piece, it’s more about some of the authoritarian remedies the anti-immigration people are pushing.

      Yeah, I can be generally pro-immigration and point what you just did (something I’ve done myself in the past), but anti-immigration people can ‘fess up about some of the snake oil their side is selling, too.

      Would the Drug War be less authoritarian if it were about immigration status instead of drugs?

      Would the no-fly list be better if it were a list of people who can get jobs instead of a list of people who can’t fly?

      Is getting rid of the drug war to cut down on violence better or worse than building a fortress along our southern border to keep out gardeners and house-cleaners?

      If people can’t be anti-immigration without favoring authoritarian policies, then they’ll have to excuse me for thinking they’re a bunch of authoritarians.

      1. but anti-immigration people can ‘fess up about some of the snake oil their side is selling, too.

        Oh, agreed wholeheartedly. I’ve been in enough conversations where there’s the old bait-and-switch from their side. But, I see even Reason pushing arguments that simply don’t pass muster (Dalmia is big on the first I mentioned.). But, you win arguments by addressing people’s concerns and interests, not by wishing them away.

    3. IMO Most people that are opposed to illegal immigration are not anti-immigration. This is the crux of the liberal media argument, opposition to illegal immigration=anti-immigration.

  11. former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leaned into the assignment by wearing an ugly baseball cap emblazoned with the phrase “MAKE MEXICO GREAT AGAIN ALSO.”

  12. the real estate outsider vaulted to the front of the GOP presidential field by accusing Mexico of “sending” to the U.S. “people that have lots of problems,” including the problem of being “rapists.”

    FWIW, Trump is far from the first to make this accusation.

    1. accusing Mexico of “sending” to the U.S. “people that have lots of problems,” including the problem of being “rapists.”

      Aside from the reference to “Mexico sending” people to the US, aren’t these factual statements? That some illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals, including rapists?

      Somewhat more controversially, that illegal Mexican immigrants commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes?

      A fact can be overstated (which Trump did, his backstroke “some, I assume, are good people” actually reinforcing the overstatement), but we can’t possibly have a productive conversation about immigration without acknowledging and evaluating the facts? The reflexive shrieking of “bigot!” whenever anyone points out that not all immigrants are a net positive and maybe we should be filtering some out is Not Helpful.

      1. Actually, the “sending” in scare quotes caught me, Trump bluster and claptrap aside. While Latin American countries may not be chartering buses and such, isn’t there evidence that countries are actively facilitating the emigration of their citizens? Perhaps it doesn’t rise to the level of “sending;” I don’t know.

        1. I caught that, too. Mexico and Central American nations may not have a “sending” campaign going on but it’s not like they even hint at discouraging it. Ironic considering the Mexican Constitution and how it treats non-Mexicans in terms of jobs and the like. Also ironic considering the open secret of Mexico’s economy being reliant on remittances from illegals working in the States.

        2. Cuba did. It literally sent to the USA, murders and rapists among innocent refugees.

      2. “Aside from the reference to “Mexico sending” people to the US, aren’t these factual statements? ”

        Do you think there is some coordinated effort from Mexican authorities to deliberately export criminals and rapists to the US?

        Many of the conservatives who are cheerleading the loudest for Trump believe that illegal immigration is a deliberate invasion by a foreign power.

        1. Do you think there is some coordinated effort from Mexican authorities to deliberately export criminals and rapists to the US?

          No, but is it unreasonable to believe that unfettered illegal immigration is going to include some less-than-honorable characters? Are we to ignore liberal complicity in cases where illegals are shielded by sanctuary laws?

          1. Here’s a fact the entire political clas is fucking up. including the libertarian establishment

            The United States has had a negative birthrate since 2007. Fewer babies than needed to keep the population level (which is 0 on the scale, I think 2.1 per woman.)

            Without immigration, our population would be falling — at increasing speed.
            Consider the implications on your children’s and grandchilden’s FICA taxes. which are in a death spiral WITH immigration. Plus both Trust Funds would be wiped out for seniors MUCH faster than whatever immigration assumptions they apply. now/

            If you think ANYONE has a credible plan to replace Social Security or Medicare, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you! Medicare is theoretically possible,I’ve read, but nobody has figured out how to do that AND deal with over $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

            1. “Libertarian establishment”?

            2. Dude:
              you may want to wash your mouth out with soap – or whatever would be analogous to your keyboard – when I tell you that your argument is one held, mostly by conservatives.
              They are willing to risk the demographic tilt of importing massive numbers of socialist-leaning workers, to keep that ponzi scheme afloat. In the face of so many of their constituents, who just want the rule of law adhered to.
              Your side only wants the demographics of a permanent socialist voting bloc. The finances will, simply, be taken from “the rich” to pay for each, according to their needs.

        2. Do you think there is some coordinated effort from Mexican authorities to deliberately export criminals and rapists to the US?

          Well… wouldn’t any country prefer its criminals and rapists to leave for another country? It’s a cheaper way of removing them from society than prison.

        3. Do you think there is some coordinated effort from Mexican authorities to deliberately export criminals and rapists to the US?

          No, which is why I objected to “sending”.

  13. Do any of you phony globalist “libertarians” ever consider that the *Reason* we hate foreigners so much is because they are so Statist and Anti-Libertarian and they believe in Socialism and Authoritarianism and hate the limitations put on government by our Constitution? I live in San Fran Psycho Bayarrhea Kalifornia and I can state unequivocally and categorically that the overwhelming majority of foreigners around here eat up the leftist liberal BS they are fed with a big giant oversized spoon!!! The foreigners around here are all in with the DemonicRats, baby!!! Big Government, Big Welfare State, the whole shebang. So who are you guys trying to kid?

    1. Big Government, Big Welfare State, the whole shebang. So who are you guys trying to kid?

      Compared with MASSIVE subsidies to our middle class?
      You may be confusing the immigrant effect with California’s teat-sucking effect. That’s not true in most of America.

  14. Matt Welch – i have friends on the border would call you an open borders anarchist…………..

  15. Who is harmed by immigration in substantial numbers?
    The working class – wages are kept low, rent is kept high, job openings are few, college is expensive, . . .
    Middle class taxpayers who pay for government employees, teachers for anchor babies, food stamps and other welfare.

    What do those who are harmed by substantial immigration have in common?
    Little money to spend on lobbyists.
    Little influence with members of congress and administrations.

    Thank the great spirit for NumbersUSA!!!

  16. Who benefits from immigration, broadly defined as legal, illegal, h2B, h1b, e visa, etc in substantial numbers:

    The immigrants – they wouldn’t come if they weren’t going to be better off.
    Employers – an increasing population of workers keeps wages down.
    Democrat members of Congress – immigrants generally vote for Democrats.
    Republican members of Congress – they benefit from bribes paid by employers.
    Ecclesiastics – they benefit from additional members of their churches.
    The military – immigrants are generally able bodied young men and women.
    The Poverty Industry, broadly defined as government agencies and private contractors.
    Landlords – rents rise as population increases.
    Real Estate developers – housing prices rise as population increases.
    Union Officers – more members for the SEIU
    Immigration Lawyers – more clients
    K12 teachers and their unions – more poor students to teach.

    What do those who benefit have in common?
    Money to employ lobbyists to bribe congress and administrations.
    Numerous articles and books explain the rationale:
    “Politics by Other Means, The Why of Immigration to the United States, and Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will, both by Fredo Arias-King.”
    The Poverty Industry: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable Citizens, Daniel L. Hatcher

  17. Wow. Plans to enforce the country’s immigration laws are now “authoritarian and unattainable”. Well then, why even bother to enforce laws at all, Matt? Nation-states have borders. It is Constitutional and right for the national government to protect citizens by enforcing immigration law. The fact that many libertarians can’t get that is one of the large reasons why no one besides themselves take them seriously.

    Libertarianism has so much to offer on the freedom, the nobility of the individual and our relationship with government. But it falls into the anarchy realm when it advocates discarding the rule of law. This is our country built by us and the enormous inheritance we received from our forebears. If a third worlder wants to come here and join us, there is a process they must follow. If they don’t follow the rules we have laid out for entry, we have every right and responsibility to enforce those rules.

  18. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  19. The reason that Reason refuses to correctly assigning the cause of government enforced border favoritism for welfare eligible immigration into the USA’s welfare state is because?.? They hate Trump? They think Gary Johnson has a soft spot for the welfare state? They have decided to unhitch themselves from Republicans and rehitch Democrat? They think that government, rather than citizen taxpayers, is the source of all money? They truly believe their Hispanic stereotype of hardworking taxpayers, none of whom ever apply for welfare?

  20. my friends aunt just got a very nice Chevrolet Express Diesel by working part time from a home computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..publicans/

    “By any measure, fears of (Illegal) immigration are driving many white Americans to the Republican Party. And, indeed, the Republican strategy on immigration appears to have been successful. Republicans now control the House and the Senate, the governor’s office in 31 states, and two-thirds of the state legislatures. They are winning the political war.”

    “An even bigger factor is that the ties of racial and ethnic minorities to the Democratic Party are tenuous. Research by Taeku Lee and myself shows that most Latinos and Asian Americans don’t feel like they fit into either party. In national surveys, those who refuse to answer a question about party identification, those who claim that they do not think in partisan terms, and independents make up the clear majority of both groups. All told, 56 percent of Latinos and 57 percent of Asian-American identify as nonpartisans.

    Even among blacks, there are signs of ambivalence. Almost 30 percent of blacks feel
    that the Democratic Party does not work hard for black interests.”

  22. http://www.philly.com/philly/o…..qus_thread

    “Most Hispanics aren’t single-issue voters when it comes to immigration. A recent Gallup poll found that among registered Latino voters, 67 percent are at least willing to support a candidate who doesn’t share their views on immigration. And 18 percent don’t consider the issue important at all.

    What’s more, many Hispanic citizens have little sympathy for immigrants who haven’t played by the rules. Especially among Latino voters born in the United States, resentment of immigrants who have entered the country illegally can run deep. Forty-two percent of American-born Hispanics disapprove of President Obama’s executive actions to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..tinos.html
    Reuben Navarette: No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

    Gee, No wonder why I fall into the Proud Independent group.

  23. If Trump didn’t exist, why he would have been invented:

    https://pjmedia dot com/victordavishanson/illegal dash immigration-finally-turned-off-public slash ?singlepage=true
    How Illegal Immigration Finally Turned Off the Public

    “Why did the illegal-immigration issue launch Donald Trump’s campaign? Why did his recent tense press conference exchange with Univision’s Jorge Ramos please even some of Trump’s liberal critics? What is it about illegal immigration that has finally turned off so many Americans?”

  24. The Liberal Case AGAINST Illegal Immigration:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ation.html

    This is the Progressive Case AGAINST Illegal Immigration:

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/0…..ach_other/

  25. http://www.trentonian.com/2016…..ntionables

    Gives one pause:

    “There he goes again, the blabbermouth nativist, Donald Trump, the wall-building xenophobe.

    “We have a massive poverty population coming into our country virtually every day from Mexico,” whines the guy who vows to build “a beautiful wall” along the southern border.

    Oops. Beg your pardon. Misread our notes. Those actually were the words of Walter Mondale, Democratic senator, Vice President, presidential candidate, Minnesota progressive, speaking in the early 1970s.”

    And, so on…..

  26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12……html?_r=0
    Hillary Clinton Is ‘Not My Abuela,’ Critics Say

    Here’s a list of recent past of Hillary’s hostilities towards Illegal Aliens:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..oth-right/

  27. http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..t-10965399
    How Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Used to Talk About Immigration Laws

    Here’s the difference between Hillary and Trump on Illegal Immigration:

    http://www.starherald.com/opin…..a0fab.html

  28. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  29. before I looked at the check which had said $6190 , I be certain …that…my sister was like trully bringing home money part time at their computer. . there uncle has been doing this for only about nine months and resently took care of the debts on their home and purchased a top of the range Lotus Elan . you could try here
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  30. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  31. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.