Donald Trump

Trump's Immigrant Bashing Isn't Winning the GOP White Voters

It's just losing it Latinos and minorities

|

The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing: Anti-immigration restrictionism. He has wavered on many things, but not on his hardline immigration position.

Czar Trump
Jim Gill

In fact, his plan to seal the border and cut back on all forms of legal immigration has literally been plucked from the ultra-restrictionist ideas voiced by the nativist Center for Immigration Studies and echoed by the National Review Online. Their electoral theory is that what the GOP loses in Latino voters through this hard-assed immigration plan, it'll gain in seven million missing white voters who sat out the last election. Call it the Latino-version of Richard Nixon's southern white strategy.

So how is it working out so far for the GOP?

If current polling trends hold, not very well, I note in my latest column at The Week. Although admittedly polls have tightened since the revelation last Friday that the FBI was investigating the treasure trove of Hillary e-mails found on Anthony Weiner's computer, "Trump's candidacy is [still] shaping up to be a living refutation of that argument," I note. Indeed, with the exception of Iowa and maybe Ohio, it is hard to think of any swing state where Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric will provide a November boon for Republicans. It has, however, put the GOP on track to lose four or more swing states.

Go here to view the column.

NEXT: Federal Judge Calls for More Citizen Oversight over NYPD's Surveillance Programs

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. Yeah, okay, we get it Trump suxx like totally to the maxx.

    1. Of course it matters not what he says about immigration. That is the tenth least disturbing thing he talks about. Here is a guy who is only tolerable over Clinton simply because he is slightly more entertaining to listen too and less of a repugnant troll witch than that hose beast. Other than that, they are the same, narcissistic, power hungry, lying scum.

      The wall/immigration stuff will never come to fruition because all that takes is non-existent money and a congress that will fight it to squash it.

      His discussion on free trade, tariffs, trade wars, wars with stick throwing psycho muslims, huge expenditures, etc… are far more dangerous than a fake immigration scare.

      1. he’s never taken money from foreign govts while holding public office, so there is that.

        1. True.
          He has yet to break the law as a politician or become a career political hack sucking money from valuable endeavors.
          He has yet to vacation the world on our dime extorting money from other corrupt, politicians.
          He has yet to use force and coercion to squash his enemies and abuse his power.
          He has yet to threaten our liberty with the police state and censorship practices.
          He has yet to get in bed with the FED/Wall Street coziness. IF he does not, he is probably a dead man.

          We shall see. Does he seem like he is corruptible?

          1. Sure, he’s corrupted by his ego.

            His ego is like a mistress always wanting him to buy it expensive things.

            1. His ego is like a Serbian waif in a beauty pageant just waiting to be grabbed by the genitals..

              They love it apparently.

          2. if he is corruptible, then we would have ample evidence of it by now, evidence at the level of Hillary’s influence-peddling. He was on the buying side of influence and said so more than once, a point that was ignored because he said “messicans.”

            1. Right. That makes him corruptible. Admitting that you paly the game on one side to get what you need is indicative of corruptible character.

              We still don’t know. But trump supporters don’t believe this guy is an honest, ethical, trust worthy guy. They just like the fact that he sounds tough and gives the finger to the establishment. The fact that everyone hates him is his most redeemable attribute. Maybe he is for real.

              Trump supporters are not very bright when it comes to understanding the things that really matter to citizens.

              less government is shrugged off as long as trump wins? How dangerous is that. Trumps admits to all kinds of terrible things.
              Both choices are terrible.

  2. Are you contractually limited to only one topic on reason, Dalmia?

    1. Yes. Trump SUX. Because illegal immigration. The end.

    2. I like how wanting to control the borders and get control over unchecked illegal immigration is “immigrant bashing”.

      1. Re: WTF,

        I like how wanting to control the borders and get control over unchecked illegal immigration is “immigrant bashing”.

        Oh, I’ll explain it to you.

        a) Because the concern implies that there are only the ‘right’ kind of immigrants despite all being human beings.

        b) Because the concern implies a desire to IMPOSE yourself on the contractual decisions of two parties whose business is NONE OF YOURS, i.e. those who invite immigrants to come over to work, or study, rent or marry.

        c) Because your concern implies you believe that your property line extends towards all national borders only when it comes to immigrants and nothing else.

        ERGO, it is immigrant bashing.

        1. Thanks, ole Mex. you saved me the trouble. My favorite tautology: if the government sucks at all it does, why then does it handle immigration correctly?

          1. ” My favorite tautology: if the government sucks at all it does, ”

            Who said it did?

            Kind of shits allover your premise, smart guy.

            1. I did, pendejo.

              1. So nobody.

                1. I am someone.

                  1. Nobodies like you often think that.

                    1. You are essentially correct. Your ideology prevails and I feel like a nobody in that particular viewpoint. Funny you’d visit a site like Hit N Run. You are a freak.

            2. True, the government does not suck at all it does. After all, it is pretty damn good at mass murder.

              1. I could kill hella moar than gubmint for less money!

              2. Thanks for the support. Irony is a fave.

                1. “Thanks for the support.”

                  now THAT is funny

                  1. Goddam, we agree on something HAHAHAHAHAHA times infinity.

        2. As long as you can guarantee that (B) is between two willing parties, and those are the only parties affected, I have no problem with it. Otherwise, we’d better figure out what the Coasean optimum is.

          1. Re: Brett L

            Sounds good. How about a cost-benefit analysis on having children? I mean, you don’t want people to think that you’re not intellectually honest.

            1. Oh man, you’ve got my number. I surrender. I didn’t claim that it was a contract between two people that a government was interfering with. But other than that, you got me dead to rights.

              1. i loled

        3. If you want to maintain that a country has no right to control its borders, then a) and c) might make sense, however, that is not the case. That would also imply countries have no right to exist, so at least be honest and make the argument that the US has no right to exist as an independent entity with a right to control its borders. And of course there are “right” kinds of immigrants, the kind who who do not and are not likely to impose an additional net burden upon the earnings of US citizens through the welfare state or through importation of illness and disease. The US is not the world’s sugar daddy. We also should be wary of importing millions of 3-worlders with little concept of liberty who will increase the constituency for more government and less freedom.

          1. You are a bit confused. If you are born in the USA, do you have a right to cradle-to-grave welfare? Are you perhaps fighting the wrong battle?

            1. and where did WTF say that? What is with folks like and HM determined to argue against the points that are not being made?

              1. It’s quite simple. Immigrants don’t come to America to sponge. They come to America to participate in a robust economy, one that doesn’t exist where they live. Math is hard.

                1. Then why are half of immigrant families on some sort of welfare? Immigrants come to sponge all the time.

                2. “Immigrants don’t come to America to sponge. They come to America to participate in a robust economy, one that doesn’t exist where they live.”

                  That is fucking retarded. Plenty of people come to America to work their asses off to give themselves and their kids a better life. And plenty of people come to America to sponge. This isn’t an either/or situation.

            2. If you are born in the USA, do you have a right to cradle-to-grave welfare?

              No.

              1. Of course not. Don’t conflate immigration with idleness.

          2. Re: WTF,

            If you want to maintain that a country has no right to control its borders, then a) and c) might make sense, however, that is not the case.

            Only individual humans have rights.

            That would also imply countries have no right to exist

            But they don’t exist. Those lines on the map? Yeah, those were placed there by tax-fed thugs with guns.

            so at least be honest and make the argument that the US has no right to exist as an independent entity

            It doesn’t exist. Only the people exist. You’re making the same mistake that most do when conferring human or organic characteristics to concepts like “society”, or “country”. They DON’T exist. What exists is the people, the individuals.

            there are “right” kinds of immigrants, the kind who who do not and are not likely to impose an additional net burden upon the earnings of US citizens

            Your argument is a Non Sequitur. The fact that the US government likes to dole out favors cannot serve as justification, either logically or morally, to deny a person’s right to migrate. As long as the person migrating does so peacefully and voluntarily, then other considerations and conditions are irrelevant when it comes to his or her right to migrate.

            1. Why is it only us that don’t own our land, OM?

              Mexico is damned protective of it’s southern border and I don’t see you getting all pissy about that–but when the gringos want to secure their border it’s a crime.

              And we see this everywhere.

              Our borders don’t matter–but if we set foot in any other country it’s ‘intervention’ or ‘imperialism’–but people are free to come here, with or without our permission, set up enclaves of the shitty cultures they just fled, and we just have to accept that.

              Because even though we’re nurturing vipers, our love of freedom demands that we do so and die lest we be seen as not so pure.

        4. Hey look, the illegal is supporting other illegals. Shocking.

            1. With all the various ways to say “you’re wrong” available to you, you instead chose “pathetic”

          1. He could in reality be commenting on this site from his home in Guadalajara. But that concept is too difficult for your dishonest mind.
            So throw out some more racist bullshit. Math is hard.

            1. “He could in reality be commenting on this site from his home in Guadalajara.”

              And where did I say he couldn’t have been?

              I mean, fuck, retard, you already made this mistake.

              1. Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks when you’re trying to be so quiet.

        5. I thought the “right” kind of immigrants were the ones who follow the constitutionally-established procedures for becoming immigrants. The hundreds of thousands who cross the border every year who don’t – and are also not part of any “contractual decision” – are not in fact “immigrants” at all.

          1. Re: Rhywun,

            So you want to make a positivist argument? Understand the implications – the government gets to.decide what is right.

            The Constitution doesn’t do that, by the way. The Bill of Rights exists under the presumption that OUR rights are given to us at borth by Our Creator.

            1. So you want to make a positivist argument? Understand the implications – the government gets to.decide what is right.

              As someone that holds government in nothing but contempt, i still see the fallacy here. Do you agree with the idiots that tell you that since libertarians don’t like big government we must want Somalia?

              While you are right that the problem with immigration today – both of the legal and illegal kind – is government, you lose me when you say because of that it should be open borders. What we should be demanding is that they fix the idiotic legal immigration system and stop the illegal immigration.

              I have a friend that has been caught dealing with government to come here legally, and by your logic what he should do is simply say fuck it and stay here illegally.

          2. Interesting. What are these constitutionally established procedures?

            1. “The Congress shall have Power […] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

              The procedures aren’t listed but the power to make them is stated right there in Article I.

              1. A uniform Rule of Naturalization does not speak to freedom of movement, does it?

                It refers to citizenship, not immigration. It does not grant any power to create a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy, does it? If they had intended to authorize Congress to establish ICE, they would have so said. But, alas, they did not.

                In a free society, why would one approve of an interpretive doctrine that expands power at the expense of individual liberty?

                Moreover, all Article I powers granted to Congress are subordinate to the BOR. Keep in mind that the BOR were enacted to check the powers granted to the big central government or else there would have been no precious constitution. Therefore, it only makes sense that Article I powers must defer to the BOR. No individual liberty is subject to “balancing” the same against any governmental interest.

                1. Nope.

                  The constitution grants wide latitude to congress in determining border control and immigration policy.

                  This has been pointed out many times – most recently when it was noted that not only would Trump’s batshit primary-proposal of “Banning Muslim Immigration” be entirely legal under the constitution, but that the US has done exactly that in the past, & the supreme court has upheld those policies

                  using…

                  …. plenary power doctrine, a legal concept articulated by the Supreme Court giving Congress tremendous power over immigration laws. It was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the late 1880s when justices upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act, a federal law that suspended immigration of Chinese laborers. Repealed during World War II, it was the first major immigration restriction enacted into law and the first exclusion based on ethnicity.

                  The plenary power doctrine “states that the courts should show exceptional deference to Congress when it legislates in the field of immigration,”….The high court has reaffirmed the doctrine in a 1972 ruling denying entry to a self-described “revolutionary Marxist” from Belgium who sought a temporary visa.

                  … Eugene Volokh told Law Blog that Mr. Trump’s plan “may be a very bad idea, but under the plenary power doctrine it may very well be constitutional.”

                  1. Re: GILMORE(TM)

                    It was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the late 1880s when justices upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act[…]

                    It is relevant to mention that the case above cited was regarding a person of Chinese origin who had a certificate allowing him re-entry to the Unites States under the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act but was denied re-entry based on the Scott Act which was an amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act and that made the certificate null and void.

                    1. Not sure what your point is. Mine was simply that the US has repeatedly enacted the kind of specific-bans of “undesirables” which people claim isn’t consitutional, and those laws were repeatedly upheld by SCOTUS

                      *and that cited example of the CEA was only the one the WSJ mentioned, but there were other similar bans of specific groups over the years, including Muslims.

                      e.g.
                      America banned Muslims long before Donald Trump

                      That editorial of course is pointing out how horrible and racist American Immigration policy has been throughout the years. The point they concede in the process is that a ‘horrible racist immigration policy’ is still entirely permissible under the constitution, even if not desirable.

                      The stupid thing about Trump’s critics is that they aren’t happy to simply say his ideas were stupid; they wanted to claim they were illegal and ‘un-american’. They are correct about the former, but wrong about the latter.

                      All of this is really sort of moot because the purpose of these claims wasn’t to propose any REAL policy, but rather to toss out ideas for the press & public to fight about, which ultimately simply helped boost Trump’s profile when he needed it.

                  2. That’s not what the plain language of the constitution provides, is it?

                    1. Yes, mike, it is strange how the “plain language” of the constitution is only ever clear when its run through hundreds of years of case law and review.

                      you’re the first person to ever think that.

                2. Well stated.

          3. …and in today’s world petty people decide whether you, potential immigrant, are welcome. How could that not be perfect?

        6. you’re putting a lot of words in WTF’s mouth. Are you sure you’re not Shikha?

          1. If countries have rights, what the fuck is WTF doing here?

            1. You’ve been reduced to incoherence.

        7. If only she quantified that with “illegal”, as all her pieces seem to want you to believe Trump hates all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, which is bull.

        8. a) Because the concern implies that there are only the ‘right’ kind of immigrants despite all being human beings.

          There IS a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ kind of immigrant.

          The ‘right’ kind respects and desires to embrace American values.

          The ‘wrong’ kind holds values that are anathema to ours, believes that America is a force for evil in the world. They do not respect our values or our laws.

          And that’s fine–because no law says they have to live here nor that we have to let them in. They are free to make their way in the world somewhere else.

          No matter their membership in the human species.

        9. “a) Because the concern implies that there are only the ‘right’ kind of immigrants despite all being human beings.”

          Open Borders “Libertarians” have no preference between libertarians and big government socialists, fascists, or totalitarians.

          All human beings. All equally welcome to become citizens and wield political power.

    3. Well there were rants on Modi, but I guess he’s just India’s Trump now.

    4. Nope. She can talk about what a piece of shit Narendra Modi is, too.

  3. Shikha DAAAAAAAAAAAALLMMMIAAA

    *fanfare plays*

  4. “The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing:…”

    Culture war.

    Or rural vs. urban, if you prefer.

    1. It’s all about class: professionals vs service workers and working class stiffs. Basically society’s elites vs their servants. Atypical for the left to be on the side of the privileged, but that’s how it is.

      1. It’s very typical of the modern Left to ally against workers. Even Marx realized toward the end of his life that the ‘proletariat’ didn’t care much for his ‘socialist paradise’ and only wealthy whites did (primarily because they benefited from government largess).

        1. In many ways, it’s an amazing con that the Democratic party has pulled off, to convince people that they are the party of the struggling working man while the Republicans are the party of the indifferent powerful elites.

  5. The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing: Anti-immigration restrictionism.

    Bullshit. Immigration has not been a headline issue for Trump since the primaries.

    He has wavered on many things, but not on his hardline immigration position.

    More bullshit. He has moderated some of his initial crazy-pants proposals, like deporting all Muslims.

    C’mon, Shikha. You don’t have to lie to squeeze out an anti-Trump article.

      1. But the Clintons have grown. It has nothing to do with shifting Democratic constituencies.

        1. The proper GoodRightthinknik-speak is, “evolved,” WTF. That term allows for all present, and possibly future, constituencies. It’s actually one of the the great Politcal Weaselly Words of modern times. It’s almost as genius as, “Saved or Created.” Whoever coined that one deserves a mother fucking medal.

          The best one, still to to this day, is conflating reduction in the rate of growth of spending as a budget cut, AKA, “Cut Spending over Ten Years.” That is, quite simply, unparalleled and unmatched.

        2. So Hillary being a stupid cunt on immigration makes Trump okay? Seriously, don’t play the game. It is truly rigged.

          1. So Hillary being a stupid cunt on immigration makes Trump okay?

            The link i posted was about Bill Clinton’s political rhetoric in the 1990s

            1. I’m simply stating that immigration is boon not bane. Universal policy. No beaurocrat can decide with his/her magic 8 ball. That’s how things have gone in the past.

              1. immigration is boon not bane.

                One can certainly hold that view while acknowledging that our country has existing-policies which address how immigration is *managed*

                Part of the uselessness of the open-borders argument is that it simply isn’t applicable to the status-quo.

                You can’t make policy better by saying “but we shouldn’t have any policy at all”

                And you’ll never convince the millions of Americans who think immigration is a problem just by saying, “no it isn’t”, sans any actual recognition of the details that those people are complaining about.

              2. immigration is boon not bane

                Sometimes, but not every single immigrant every time.

                No beaurocrat can decide with his/her magic 8 ball.

                Oh, some cuts are so easy to make even a beaurocrat can do them:

                Infectionous disease.

                History of violent crime.

                No job.

          2. As I read G, his point was more that Trump’s immigration positions were quite mainstream recently, so why all the hysterics and handwringing about them now?

            Unless, of course, immigration is merely a convenient hook to hang your TDS effusions on.

            1. Sure, where “recently” means “20 years ago.” Demographic shift much?

              But of course you haven’t read Dalmia’s actual column, have you?

              1. Values should change to mirror demography/ethnicity? Is that your argument? Because, if so, you are parroting the restrictionists’ line.

                1. Where are you getting “should”? They do change. They have changed.

                  1. Still parroting the restrictionists’ line.

                    1. I’m pretty sure “things change as time passes” is everyone’s line.

                    2. One thing immigration restrictionists tend to agree on is that these changing demographics are precisely engineered to transform society into something that elects Democrats and above all else, furthers the leftist agenda. Combine that with the pols and journos who are absolutely gleeful that whites are rapidly approaching minority status in western countries, the lands their ancestors built, and you might see why whites have reason to feel threatened by ethnic displacement promoted by the open boarders crowd.

                      Between welfare, the culture wars, identity politics run amok and open boarders, it’s a fucking disaster in the making. I happen to care about the society my children and grandchildren will live in after I’m gone, and if I wanted that society to be a perpetual banana republic or an Islamist theocracy or more likely, a Balkanized land of strife and stagnation, I’d be promoting open boarders along with the rest of you.

                    3. changing demographics are precisely engineered

                      Tell us another one, bro.

                    4. Great argument. I can tell that you have a ton of insight on this issue.

                    5. Re: Free Society,

                      In order to argue that, you would have to assume that the Democrats know what they’re doing. That is not necessarily the case, as the immigrant population is not monolithic. However, one thing that is true is that the rhetoric coming from the nativists and El Trumpo leaves no question as to the level of animosity towards immigrants from the GOP rank and file. That WILL put off most Hispanic voters, something the GOP and Trumpistas can only blame themselves for.

                      As for the welfare system and the like, that’s a red herring promoted by the economically illiterate. Immigrants help keep the welfare system sustainable because they come into the country ready to work. Compare that to having babies which CONSUME resources without anything in return until they’re of age. Besides, those who repeat the welfare canard conveniently leave out that the greatest recipients of welfare in the US are the elderly. The expenditures on SS and Medicare is almost half the total US government budget. Welfare is but a minuscule part of the budget.

                    6. From a young Mexican to an old one: stop basing your entire immigration argument on the fact that people are individuals then collectivize massive, disparate groups in the next breath.

                    7. Come on OM, you know damn good and well that most people’s problems aren’t with legal immigrants and naturalized citizens.

                      To your second point, don’t the children/grandchildren of immigrants turn out to be just as hungry for the welfare teat as the 10th generation Smith?

                    8. I’m pretty sure that “the country’s values will change if its demographics changte” is the restrictionists’ line.

      2. And if it was kosher for Bill C. to talk about an illegal-immigrant problem in the 1995, you have to wonder why Trump is so off-the-reservation for saying exactly the same things when that population is now ~ 250% larger.

        *note: i think that same evidence suggests that ‘border crossing’ isn’t the problem at all, and rather our system of integrating people who are already here.

        Which Trump has already made signs that he recognizes, and that his Hurr Durr rhetoric is really just campaign red-meat.

        But people like Shikha wouldn’t have jobs if they were forced to try and determine “what the reality is”. They need to take the most absurd possible nativist rhetoric and act like its somehow just a foreshadowing of the inevitable Racist-Police-State…. which somehow would look *very different* than what we already have.

      3. and Harry Reed’s, and most democrats during the same decade

    1. C’mon, Shikha. You don’t have to lie to squeeze out an anti-Trump article.

      Actually, she does; she just can’t help herself.

      1. She needs clicks. This is her clickbait, and we are her Pr0N.

    2. Re: RC Dean,

      Bullshit. Immigration has not been a headline issue for Trump since the primaries

      Except when he returned from Mexico and made a horrible anti-immigrant speech in Phoenix, AZ. That was AFTER the primaries. How quickly all ye have forgotten.

      He has moderated some of his initial crazy-pants proposals, like deporting all Muslims

      You’re being sarcastic….

      …. right?

      1. since he never said “deport all Muslims” in the first place……

      2. I said “not a headline issue”, not “completely silent”.

        Trump’s moderation on initial crazy-pants proposals, as summarized by NPR (not noted for being pro-Trump):

        http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up…..migration/

        Note that the “softening” happened in that very speech that you point to.

  6. Tweet tweet

  7. SD; DR.

      1. Soglasen, eshhjo moj znakomij Pannij Z!

        1. Vy predstavlyayete sebe vysokiy russkiy MILFS?

          1. Y menja sejchas uzhe ochen’ krasivaja zhena, SvobodaMikhail. **Bol’shoj ulybki**

            1. Moya zhena zharko, slishkom.

              1. *chuckes* Mike, I get what you are trying to say, but you basically intimated your wife is running a fever. “Zharko/ij/aja./oe” refers to literal temperature. A loose interpretation would be she is about to spontaneously combust.

                1. She would concur – I have that kind of effect on her!

  8. Hello in there, Shikha. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

    1. Potato!
      /Shikha

  9. Ohhhh, clever alt-text Shikha. I think I get it.

  10. Oh boy… cue the arguments ripped from the headlines of the turn of the 20th century. Which were wrong then, but are somehow now correct a 100 years later…

    Fear the BLACK HAND!

      1. Spent a while recently reading about Galleanism. Can’t help but feel that modern Americans expect to be so safe nowadays that another such campaign would lead to martial law.

        Italian anarchists exploded big bombs, in public, over the course of decades. And yet somehow, Italians eventually became “white” and integrated into the mainstream of American society and no one would suggest that they are a terrorist threat. This happened despite the USA fighting two wars with their nation of origin on the opposing side, which you might think would test loyalties.

        Any anti-immigration person other than PapayaSF want to take a stab at why Italians and Mexicans are actually different, such that the same arguments that were wrong about 1910s Italians are correct about 2010s Mexicans?

        1. 1910s Italians didn’t stomp around to demand everyone else accommodate their language. In fact, my grandfather could barely speak Italian despite being born to two immigrants whose English was never exactly fluent. Despite their difficulties with the language, they only spoke Italian to each other and not their children because they were determined that their kids were going to be “all American”, not Italian. And before some asshole says something like this, no, it had nothing to do with denying their heritage. Unlike some Italians of the era, no one in my family ever changed their last name (although they did use the English equivalents for first names – Giovanni became John, Alfredo became Alfred, Caterina became Catherine, etc).

          1. 1910s Italians didn’t stomp around to demand everyone else accommodate their language.

            I’ve heard anecdotes like this before, but it is worth noting that one of the charges leveled at them at the time is that they were insular and… refused to integrate. Perhaps in the absence of a good faith metric regarding attempts to assimilate, natives assume the worst?

        2. Interesting. I’ll drop that one on my (Italian) wife when she starts in on immigration and crime again. Just for fun.

        3. I’m terrible on 20th Century US history, but wasn’t reaction to that 40 years of extremely limited immigration, during which the integration happened? Yes, post hoc is a fallacy.

          And US fought Italy only 1941-1943. They were allies in WW 1, and post-Mussolini government fought Germans while being equipped by Brits and the US.

          1. Disclaimer: not a trumpet, posting on iPad sucks, almost are knowledge of US political history. Just thought it was interesting oho history runs in circles

            In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed.

            I mean, this is really some beyond-Trump shit.

            1. Incidentally, because the immigration law that kept out Italians did not contain a limit for immigration from South America, many Italians immigrated to the US via South American countries.

              Keeping out Italians but letting in Brazilians and Mexicans in unlimited numbers is some… beyond… something shit alright. But Italians were the ones blowing stuff at the time, I guess… ? 😀

        4. And yet somehow, Italians eventually became “white” and integrated into the mainstream of American society and no one would suggest that they are a terrorist threat.

          It’s definitely an interesting subject, and one that I think is being addressed vis-a-vis the government’s approach to integration.

          A long time ago there were factors at play that arguably allowed people to integrate better into society.

          For instance, it’s been noted that assimilation is far better in the US than it is in Europe, and there’s some discussion about how the European welfare state plays into that. In Europe, it’s difficult to get a job and the government creates all kinds of policies that make it hard to get employed– policies ironically designed to ‘protect’ employees. Europe also gives the poor migrants a stipend or ‘income’, then there they sit, unemployed but on welfare– and huge resentments begin to fester.

          In America, we don’t have the pan-welfare state and employment restrictions they have in Europe– even though our government is trying to implement those policies in an explicit race to be “more like Europe”.

          Plus, with the modern news cycle, people may not want to be subjected to bomb throwing “for decades” while these factors of assimilation are “sorted out”.

          Shorter: It’s complicated.

          1. I appreciate your exploration of various differences between then and now. I agree that, generally, the trend has been against assimilationism. I agree that expecting immigrants to become less like their home country and more like their new home is likely key to avoiding immigrant resentment and resulting second-generation terrorism.

            1. I agree that expecting immigrants to become less like their home country and more like their new home is likely key to avoiding immigrant resentment and resulting second-generation terrorism.

              Putting aside the question of terrorism per se, there are differences in assimilation depending on how a particular groups is treated and received. It seems to me, the more coddling a government does towards a particular immigrant group, the more resentment and slower they are to assimilate.

        5. Couple things to look at:

          (1) Some Mexicans have no intention of integrating into America – they are here just for the jobs/money. I wonder if that was true for turn of the century Italians?

          (2) Italian immigrants didn’t have Italy right next door, which probably made it more urgent for them to assimilate.

          (3) Between the welfare state and multi-culturalism, the context for assimilation is very different than it was 100 years ago.

          (4) Mexicans? Our new illegals these days are more Central Americans than Mexicans. And, of course, a real driver of immigration concern isn’t even Central Americans, its impossible-to-vet people from areas that are known terrorist factories.

          More questions than actually stabbing at Italians and Mexicans, but I think the attempt to conflate the two groups across 100 years is, how the kids say, problematic.

          1. Greater return mobility (and communication with the old world) reducing assimilation motivation is a fair point; I wonder if it has been meaningfully measured? The social sciences are difficult to get meaningful data out of, unfortunately…

        6. Not sure which arguments you are referencing, but a couple of differences which are notable:
          1910 – expanding, labor-intensive industrial economy, high demand for low-skill labor
          2010s – mostly service and technology intensive economy, not rapidly expanding
          1910 – no welfare state
          2010s – extensive welfare state

          1. FWIW, I find “there is an extensive welfare state” now a fine counter argument on its face.

            It is a certain type of pragmatic to realize we are not getting away from it any time soon and question whether various classes of immigrant are likely to be a net gain or loss for such a system.

        7. “despite the USA fighting two wars with their nation of origin on the opposing side”

          I can think of only the Second World War. Anything else?

          I know you’re not thinking of the *First* World War, when Italy was on the same side as the U.S.

          1. I know you’re not thinking of the *First* World War

            D’oh, I was posting before my morning caffeine. Mea culpa. (Uh oh, is that eye-talian talk?)

        8. Italians weren’t Third Worlders. In 1910 the preassure was to learn English and assimilate, and there was no government welfare. Today the pressure is “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” we are now expected to learn their languages, and we have welfare up the wazoo.

          And there was no Italian revanchist movement.

  11. Trump was up over 45 in a couple of polls he’d never hit 45 before. He must be either winning white voters or not driving away minorities, no?

    1. Clinton’s margin over Trump with Latinos is smaller than Obama’s margin over Romney. Trump is also doing better among blacks than Romney. Seriously Shikha, a couple seconds of Googling is all it takes.

    2. A couple more minutes of googling:

      Gallup Poll: In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

      Quote:
      Increased: 21%
      Present level: 38%
      Decreased: 38%

      So 76% of the population wants immigration to be kept steady or decreased.

  12. “”””The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing: Anti-immigration restrictionism. “”

    So if Trump wins then Shikha Dalmia will admit she lost and stop writing about the wonders of open borders?

  13. I see Russian joke and Dalmism. How about some literature? Is Dalmia giving us Hermetic signals to read esoteric Russian philosophy?

    Views from the Other Shore: Essays on Herzen, Chekhov, and Bakhtin

    The Russian intellectual tradition that triumphed under Joseph Stalin fostered nationalism, xenophobia, collectivism and messianic utopianism. . . . Aileen Kelly reminds us of another Russian tradition–‘the other shore’–writers who were more modest in their aspirations and realistic in their assessments. The philosophers Alexander Herzen, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Anton Chekhov, among others, distrusted final solutions. . . . The author writes of these thinkers with enormous acumen, vigor and sympathy. — Milton Ehre, Washington Times

  14. Meanwhile, Germany’s crime spike continues to rise and the far-right parties gain in the polls.

    Reason’s silence on that, and many other topics, is really undermining its credibility. You want to argue open borders? This is when the arguments are most needed. Something besides the inane rants of Shikha.

    1. Indeed. We have a real life experiment in mass immigration and open borders going on in Europe right now. How’s it going? would be a legit topic for some real reporting by intellectually honest writers.

      Barfing up stale talking points, not so much.

      1. I read somewhere about a contradiction in libertarian thinking. Libertarians argue for smaller government, and by extension, states rights over the national government. But when it comes to globalism they want the opposite. Both “free trade” and open borders destroys nations and increases the power of global entities. Why Reason employs someone like Dalmia who is fighting for more immigration (which just leads to more and more government and less freedom) is beyond me.

      2. From where I sit, and as a legal immigrant myself now (got the coveted Permanent Resident Tax Status a couple of years ago), the mass migration and unchecked immigration is really putting a strain on various and sundry countries that are, bluntly, not equipped to handle the instant sea of people showing up.

        The most galling (purposefully under-reported) thing is the crime. In particular, the sexual assaults, that are continuing unabated really. Medical authorities have been told, explicity, in some of the neighbouring countries that if a suspected rapist is a migrant/immigrant, especially of suspected Middle Eastern or African origin, the possible criminal case is supposed to be buried and handled as simply a medical issue. Full Stop.

        The unreported, or worse crime reclassified as a civil or strictly medical matter, is truly the story that begs to be told, and a legit, to quote Chad of yore, incalculable and unpredictable externality.

      3. *shrug*
        Germany has run an experiment in “work visas easy to get, citizenship really hard” since mid-60s till sometime after the reunification. This is ostensibly a libertarian position, but I’ve not seen Reason mention it in its immigration articles, nor it comes up in the comments. Why should an ongoing, recent process that hasn’t shaken out be considered?

        Disclaimer: no, I haven’t read last 30 years of Reason archives and Cato immigration papers, so maybe there’s a detailed analysis out there so wonky it gives Suderman a 12-hour erection. So I could be talking complete shit.

        1. Why should an ongoing, recent process that hasn’t shaken out be considered?

          Why shouldn’t it? Out in the real world, we do it all the time – call them course corrections, PDCA process improvement cycles, whatever. Hell, even the drug companies will terminate clinical trials of the preliminary results are bad.

          Especially considering that the “shaking out” process for mass immigration takes generations. We should wait 50 years before drawing any lessons from Europe’s experiment?

          1. I’m saying, “we” aren’t drawing experiences from actual 50 years of different immigration experiments run by sundry European states. So why look at the ongoing process that might clash with “our” axioms, when it’s easier to ignore it?

    2. Breitbart has it covered and then some.

      1. Waffles is one of those types who takes any criticism of the Reason writers as meaning that someone is a HitNRunpublican. It can’t possibly be that Reason, through their mendacious silence, does more harm to their own narrative than I could. I must obviously be calling on Reason to cover the story the same exact way as Breitbart.

        It’s more telling that you think that Breitbart’s coverage is basically all there is to say here. If Reason has nothing to offer, they’ve lost the debate by default.

    3. This is what gets me.

      On NPR yesterday they were questioning that, if Trump loses, where do all these traditional republicans and alt-right voters go? Entirely unmentioned were the multitude of #NeverHillary voters and various other disaffected members of Team Blue. Like once (again) their candidate gets elected, the flooding will begin and the bitter clingers and deplorables will be washed away and the bureaucracy will part with the waiving of her hands.

      Outside of the people who literally get high voting for her, I can’t see how anyone really thinks 4 yrs. is going to make her or the party and any of their stances by proxy any more popular. Gridlock will work in her favor much the same way it worked for Obama.

      1. I think it’s outside the reporter’s realm of possibility to consider the other side of the coin occurring.
        Only the Republican party will undergo chaos after next Tuesday, not the Dems.
        #NeverHillary voters are only Republicans, as far as that reporter is concerned.
        Last time I checked Hillary was still polling only 55% of women voters.

        55%

  15. Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing: Anti-immigration restrictionism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf3WUJBcf-48

    And?

  16. Anyone else bothered by the insinuation it is expected that white people like to “immigrant bash”?

    1. White men have ruled the world for 1000 years and it’s time POC step up and take charge.

      1. They can rule. Just leave me out of it.

  17. In fact, his plan to seal the border and cut back on all forms of legal immigration has literally been plucked from the ultra-restrictionist ideas voiced by the nativist Center for Immigration Studies and echoed by the National Review Online.

    Literally, Ms. Dalmia? I’d like to see how you can literally pluck an idea.

    1. See, it’s good when immigrants practice identity politics but bad when whites do it.

      1. Er, no. I oppose identity politics all around.

        My comment was to Dalmia’s mangling of the word “literally”.

        1. True, Bill.

          After a while though, if you kick a dog enough, now matter how friendly or how much the dog shows you its belly to appease an SJW owner beating the dog with a race cudgel, don’t be surprised when the dog bites back.

          Because identity politics have immediate, demonstrably benefits, nobody is going to cease using them. Just like any other weapon, and nobody likes being disarmed when everyone else has an Approved Social Grievance Cudgel.

    2. Literally, Ms. Dalmia? I’d like to see how you can literally pluck an idea.

      Ha! that’s great. I literally died laughing.

  18. I’ll be laughing my ass off at Dalmia next week after the coming Trumpslide.

    1. It will be President Kaine, who came off like a complete asshole when debating Pence, as decided by the electoral college. The FBI and CIA will not let HRC take office. i’m taking bets for Kudos on this. January 21st.

      1. You get Kaine and I get the field?

        I’ll take some of that.

    2. I think it is unlikely, but there is a bit of a Brexit feel to this election.

    3. I don’t think that will happen, but if Trump wins, I’ll be laughing my ass off for a few weeks, too.

      Then I’ll get to the important business of opposing every anti-libertarian thing Trump does, but I’ll be laughing my ass off at progressives for weeks, too.

      1. Repurpose the rain barrels for all the sweet sweet tears.

        Also, don’t forget to pace yourself, consuming too many tears at once can cause and electrolyte imbalance. While the prolonged inebriated feeling might seem amusing at first, the danger of pulmonary failure or arrhythmia can cost you your life.

          1. I’ll carve, “Killed by the tears of SJWs” into your tombstone.

  19. A list of anti-immigration polices is given and then this:

    “Unfortunately for Republicans, this restrictionist warpath is a surefire road to political self-annihilation for two reasons: It is counter to how American public opinion is trending (as I wrote last week), and it alienates Latinos, without whom it is not possible to win”

    Two things.

    1) The implementation of most of the things we’re talking about aren’t really much different from what the Democrats are actually doing.

    If Trump questions birthright citizenship, what difference does that really make?

    Do you really think Trump will get the 14th Amendment repealed? That the courts will start ignoring the 14th Amendment because Trump was elected?

    Same thing on the wall and amnesty. Even if Trump gets a wall built, what difference will it make? Maybe President Hillary uses drones, but she’ll still be deporting some 400,000 illegal aliens a year just like Obama. And Congress (Democrat or Republican) isn’t about to pass legislation that would give millions of illegal aliens amnesty either. Hilary’s reelection chances will be so precarious, the chances of her signing something so controversial will be low, too.

    Most of this is limited by practical considerations in reality. In reality, Trump’s immigration policy isn’t likely to be much different from Hillary’s (or Obama’s).

    1. “Trump’s immigration policy” = house-to-house urban warfare and rounding up illegals in the middle of the night and deporting in boxcars. That’s what gets Trumpkins so excited about his immigration policy. Sorry to break it to you but we will have a lot of unused boxcar designs after the election.

      1. That’s a nice hallucination you have going there troll.

        1. He’s being sarcastic.

          No way you could have known that unless you’ve been here long enough.

          Poe’s Law.

          We’re all good!

          1. I normally ignore him so that’s what I get for actually reading his nonsense.

        2. “It is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing”.

    2. it alienates Latinos, without whom it is not possible to win”

      I vaguely recall this bit of Dem triumphalism after Romney loss, followed by analysis that, well, maybe not so much.

  20. Stupid Trumpkins. They still think they’ll be rounding up illegals. Sorry, stupid Trumpkins.

  21. 2) The suggestion that Trump’s hot air on immigration alienates Latinos is a little complicated. Trump enjoys more support from Latinos than he does from blacks. Think about that for a second. He isn’t threatening to deport blacks.

    Italians and Irish used to make up distinct voting blocks, but nowadays, they’re as “white” as anybody. More and more Latinos are becoming more and more part of that “white” demographic all the time, too. Yeah, Trump does well with blue collar, middle class whites, but what I don’t think a lot of people understand is that blue collar, middle class whites are becoming more and more Latino all the time.

    If you think that’s going to become a bigger problem for the Republicans over time as more and more Latinos integrate into the wider culture, I think you’re missing the obvious implication. Over time, that wedge you’re trying to drive between Latinos and the wider culture is likely to become increasingly ineffective. There may not be anything about being Latino that makes third and fourth generation construction workers less reluctant to compete with illegal immigrant labor for construction jobs.

    Already, I suspect the hype about Trump supporters being racists and anti-immigration bigots is more effective with college educated suburbanites than it is with third and fourth generation, blue collar Latinos.

    1. Re: Ken Shultz

      The suggestion that Trump’s hot air on immigration alienates Latinos is a little complicated. Trump enjoys more support from Latinos than he does from blacks.

      El Trumpo has LESS support from “Latinos” today than Romney did back in 2012.

      Already, I suspect the hype about Trump supporters being racists and anti-immigration bigots is more effective with college educated suburbanites than it is with third and fourth generation, blue collar Latinos

      It’s not the hype, Ken. It’s what he said that is turning off most Hispanics because the implication is that most Hispanics are either rapists, criminals or the SONS and DAUGHTERS of rapists and criminals. Think about what he SAID and the implication of what he said and you will understand. He said “Mexico sends us a lot of people with problems; they’re rapists, they bring drugs, they bring crime, and SOME, I assume, are good people.” When he added the determinant “some” he ipso facto divided the universe of immigrants from Mexico into to groups: one made of 50%-plus-one which are rapists and criminals and the other of 50%-less-one who are “good people”.

      That’s a LOT of rapists, Ken.

      1. I guess I’m in a vanishingly small minority of Americans of Mexican descent – not Latino, not Mexican – American. I’m fucking sick of people assuming I’m a SIV because people who share almost nothing in common with me *could* be insulted by politicians saying that we should enforce laws that already exist.

        Most of my family has been in America before it was America yet they vote reliably democrat because THEYRE FUCKING DEMOCRATS. They don’t give a shit about mujados and no amount of opening the border will make them run towards republicans. The concern trolling and collectivization of the meaningless term ‘Hispanic’ is getting tiresome.

  22. Here is the thing, it is not really loosing him any white voters either.

    The portion of the white vote for whom the immigration issue is the straw that breaks the camels back is smaller than the portion who whom it is the issue that draws them out of the Democrat fold and into voting for Trump

  23. Here’s the thing which the people who screech “Look at all the Trump supporters!!” don’t understand.

    I’m *pro-immigration*. My problem isn’t that the policy of the US is going to take a significant turn to the negative (*which as noted above – its already mostly done)

    Its that screeching about Trumpian rhetoric doesn’t help educate anyone about policy, and sure as fuck doesn’t make people more-aware that, Happy-Feely-Clinton-Talk aside, the Democrats are no better than the GOP in addressing the structural problems with US immigration policy.

    Reason is supposed to be the “Smart Source” on this topic – the one who cuts through the bullshit partisan yammering to the underlying reality. And it has been in the past. Unfortunately… now, they’ve handed the topic to…. what i’ll generously call a 3rd-stringer on the Journalist-team, whose M.O. is to pen hyperbolic partisan screeds loosely sprinkled with misconstrued (when not misrepresented) factual-details.

    The complaint is not that ‘Reason needs to be more-fair to Trump’ – fuck Trump. They need to be more honest about the issue, and smarter about how they unpack the political bullshit surrounding the policy.

    1. Go on. What are the structural problems with US immigration policy? You might have my vote.

      1. Fuck that. I’d already pay more to read GILMORE’s work than Dalmia’s.

        1. So you’re saying Shika isn’t a Gilmore Girl?

          1. You, sire, have won yourself Ten Shiny Internetz for that one!

      2. What are the structural problems with US immigration policy?

        We somehow have gotten convinced is that the problem is that we need “Better Enforcement” of byzantine law, rather than streamlining the byzantine law?

        Everyone wants the “Taller Fence” before the “Wider Door”, but the fact is that you’ll never get any (theoretical) fence which *works* unless you have a simple process which allows the “good (non-criminal, law abiding) immigrants” to live outside the shadows.

      3. Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers

        Quote:
        … it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers ? the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans ? sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

        Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans – why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.

        1. And, if we have to choose between the well-being of immigrants and American citizens, the government is duty-bound to choose the well-being of American citizens.

          Its more complicated, I know, but the idea that we should not take into account negative impacts on American workers in making immigration policy is an idea that needs to die.

    2. So much this

  24. As a libertarian, the main and far most important reason I dislike Trump is his clueless understanding of economics and what his government’s role in the economy should be.

    1. I’m a libertarian too. But are you an American? It only happen here. You can’t chose one the other.

      1. Trump knows the economy. Believe him!

        And that is what it takes to become president of the united states in 2016.

        We have one party that hires retards to start fights at political rallies and another party that cheers a guy that has gone bankrupt multiple times, has contributed to his political foes, has invited them to his wedding, has espoused all of the things that small government people find anathema, and who vows to screw things up as badly as that hose beast c*nt. And the sheep on the right rejoice.

        Idiocracy here now.

  25. Czar Dolad J Putin

    I don’t get it.

  26. I see Sad Beard as the best yardstick for measuring hack journalists.

    Shikha is on a clear trajectory to exceed a full Sad-Beard in the not-too-distant future.

    1. Did you see that Sad Beard deleted, at long last, his “I’m throwing a marker down” Obamacare cheerleading tweet from years ago? That made me laugh much more than it should have.

  27. Finally. I’ve been waiting for Shikha Dalmia to weigh in on Trump.

  28. Less dramatic than Utah ? but equally remarkable ? are Texas and Arizona. The Republican margin has shrunk considerably in the Lone Star Sate, and it is on the verge of going blue.

    And Shikha wants Texas to turn Blue. This exactly what will happen if HRC is elected. I can’t say this loud enough. If Texas turns blue, it will inner-city Democrats all the was down FOREVER.

    1. The US has already gone blue.

      When one party runs a guy like trump as the supposed “right” leaning candidate, I can say the transformation is complete.

      This guy says he will spend the hell out of some taxpayer money. He is going to be as big government as they come.

      Disaster is either a bombastic ass scumbag with a cartoon head of hair or an evil c*nt scumbag that is so disgusting, I find my self hoping I go deaf and blind.

      1. If only Mitt Romney were running again. Come on. Trump is beside the point by your thinking.

        1. exactly. Romney was more of the same. Point is that the most far leaning leftist in the 1940s was degrees to the right of the most far right leaning republican today.

          Trump sounds exactly like a neocon to me. He is just a neo-con that has no record of spending money for what he thinks is right.

          1. Henry Agard Wallace begs to differ with Timbo about leftward leaning.

    2. Texas and Arizona are so far from blue it is laughable.

      The only people saying Texas is in play are the propaganda hacks touting a DNC talking point.

  29. “The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing”

    Lol

    1. A referendum on bad deals and low energy people

      Solution? Yuge jobs and tireless winning.

      1. Legalize cocaine!

        1. Immutable and poignant trump point number 14:

          “What these drugs are doing to this country is terrible”

          Solution:
          “We’re gonna stop these shootings in the streets!”
          Process: TBD

          Running for president is apparently not that much of a challenge.

  30. Reason, this shit is beyond embarrassing. We all have our own flavor of little l libertarianism. I personally happen to be a full-on open borders person. Others aren’t. We can have intelligent arguments about it.

    But here in the pages of Reason, the spokesperson for my soize of the argument is a partisan hack that couldn’t tie her fucking shoes without bringing up trump.

    To repeat: I love open borders, I hate trump, and somehow, I hate dalmia/reason’s shitty coverage of the issue even more. fuck you. You almost make me want to go statist.

    1. The US is running a half-assed European welfare state with half-assed open borders.

      1. Agreed.

        I am anti welfare state, pro open borders. They are both just crazy pipe dreams at this point. But I’d like both. So I’ll pitch for em both.

        I understand the people who feel you have to kill the welfare state first. That’d be really nice. It just feels weird to me to fight for closed borders for decades with the plan in the back of your head to flip 180 degrees later if your other crazy pipe dream ever happens.

        Good luck to us all!

        1. Good luck to us all!

          My thoughts and prayers are with me.

        2. I understand the people who feel you have to kill the welfare state first. That’d be really nice. It just feels weird to me to fight for closed borders for decades with the plan in the back of your head to flip 180 degrees later if your other crazy pipe dream ever happens.

          This assumes or implies binary borders open/close and welfare state exists/doesn’t states (and ignores other confounding variables such as a mandatory living/minimum wage).

          One could easily be in favor of not opening the borders any further until we figure out if illegal aliens will get subsidies under the ACA, free college tuition, etc.

          I mean, in reality, they’re both one-way ratchets and more immigrants getting more free shit is inevitable. But, while you’re more than willing to throw the switch and let the trolley hit the fat man, there are others who see it as murder either way and want no part of it or reminisce about times when trolleys didn’t exist to run people over.

          1. Also, one thing that gets overlooked or slurred together (by both sides); immigrants vs. refugees. Being passively open to immigration and actively supportive of importing/relocating refugees are or can/should easily be seen as two distinct issues.

    2. “To repeat: I love open borders, I hate trump, and somehow, I hate dalmia/reason’s shitty coverage of the issue even more. fuck you. You almost make me want to go statist.”

      Trump’s biggest advantage is the loathesome brain dead dishonesty of his enemies in the media.

      Such transparent dishonesty that anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty finds themselves siding with Trump again and again despite hating him.

      However paranoid you are about Trump as the next Hitler, we clearly already are in the grips of a corrupt totalitarian Pravda and can’t have a free society until they are *crushed*.

  31. Meanwhile in Europe…

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..wlessness/

    1. And from another Euro country, Sweden, we have similar reports:

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..ence-crime

      God forbid, though, that we have an informed conversation about both the upsides and downsides of immigration, and how you minimize the latter and maximize the former.

      1. God forbid, though, that we have an informed conversation about both the upsides and downsides of immigration, and how you minimize the latter and maximize the former.

        Exactly.

        Pretending that immigration is some battle between “Open Borders” and “Xenophobic Total-Restrictionists” is the worst of all approaches, because you’re basically saying that there is no possible middle-ground area where any concession to practical-reality is possible.

        What’s most retarded is that voters act as tho the above are fair-characterizations of the Left and Right in America – when in fact both Dems and GOP are barely distinguishable in their actual implementation of policies. As noted in many links above.

  32. Update HD Quality Films Available ON:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    For the latest movie, music, news, trailers, exclusive interviews & HD Quality Streaming Online visit our official website
    Cheeeeers

  33. “The Trump candidacy is a referendum on one thing: Anti-immigration restrictionism. He has wavered on many things, but not on his hardline immigration position.”

    A tiny but satisfying bonus of the impending Trumpslide:

    Watching Shikha do a 180 and claim that Trump’s anti immigration positions had *nothing at all* to do with his victory.

  34. “Their electoral theory is that what the GOP loses in Latino voters through this hard-assed immigration plan, it’ll gain in seven million missing white voters who sat out the last election. ”

    Actually the theory is that Hispanics overwhelmingly prefer bigger government to smaller government, so that tens of millions of newly christened Hispanic voters will spell the end of any hope of limited government in the US.

    Perhaps Shikha would like to take a swing at the question I had for Nick:
    How will christening millions more big government voters make the US more libertarian?

    Actual Facts on Hispanic political preferenes in the US, immigrants and otherwise:
    PEW Research on Hispanic Americans

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
    Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

    1. Yup. Which is why open borders is suicidal to liberty and libertarianism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.