Refugees

If You Disapprove of Trump's Refugee/Travel Ban, You're in the Minority

New polls shows 49 percent support, versus just 41 percent against...

|

Zach Weissmueller, Reason TV

A poll of 1,200 Americans over the past two days finds that a plurality of Americans—49 percent—approve "strongly" or "somewhat" of Donald Trump's ban on all refugees and travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries. Just 41 percent oppose the action, part of which the administration has already walked back.

According to Reuters, the split runs tightly along partisan lines, with 51 percent of Republicans strongly agreeing with the executive order and 53 percent of Democrats strongly disagreeing. And how's this for feels?

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 31 percent of Americans feel "more safe" because of the ban, compared with 26 percent who said they felt "less safe." Some 38 percent said they felt the United States was setting "a good example" of how best to confront terrorism, while 41 percent said the country was setting "a bad example."

Democrats were more than three times as likely as Republicans to say that the "U.S. should continue to take in immigrants and refugees," and Republicans were more than three times as likely as Democrats to agree that "banning people from Muslim countries is necessary to prevent terrorism."

We're already safer, despite the fact that since 1980, zero Americans have been killed in the United States by people admitted as refugees! More of us support the ban than abjure it, but more of us believe we're setting a "bad example." America, do you contradict yourself? Very well, then, you contradict yourself!

More results, and discussion of methodology, are here.

The executive order, which went into effect on Saturday at midnight, provoked demonstrations around the country and, as Reuters notes, a dozen states are looking into files lawsuits against it. Additionally, the acting attorney general was fired after stating she wouldn't enforce the law.

In Congress, most Democrats have spoken out against the ban; they've been joined by 40 or more Republicans. That number is likely to go down if and when more people watch this awful video (courtesy of Fox News) of Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer working a crowd to sing "This Land Is Your Land" and attempting to show "the real people" affected by the ban.

This is one of those moments when I'd rather be right than popular. Trump's order is based on hysteria and panders to the worst sort of xenophobia at work in the dark night of the American psyche. As important, it hurts our efforts in fighting Islamic terrorism by alienating allies in the Middle East.

NEXT: Incompetence and Cronyism Plague U.S. Attempts to Counter ISIS Online

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. So this is, what, 20 stories about this fucking topic now?

    1. So this is, what, 200 comments about repetitive coverage now?

      1. I think Reason fucked his mom.

        1. Reason is kind of an asshole that way.

          1. Reason isn’t good enough to fuck my mom. It doesn’t surprise me, they are good enough for yours.

            1. Are you looking for people to fuck your mom? Cause it kinda sounds like you are looking for people to fuck your mom.

              1. He’s looking for someone other than his uncle to go back in time before he was born and fuck his mom so he can be born with all his chromosomes.

        2. Yours obviously reproduced asexually. No one would fuck her

      2. IDK, 200 seems kinda low.

    2. How many of them mention Obama’s refugee ban from Cuba?

      1. Or the 6 month ban under Obama… in 2011? Someone else mentioned that on one of these comments sections a few days ago. Wherein an interpreter actually was assassinated while he waited for entry. Where were the hyperbolic speeches and hysterical protests then? http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=20931131

    3. Well, it’s an important topic to a lot of people, not just Reason. But yeah, they do seem to be looking for just about any new angle that would justify another story about it. Domestic reactions in the form of demonstrations, in the form of panelists discussing it, reactions from Congressmen, international reactions, and now a survey that tries to measure domestic reactions numerically. And the numbers show that the country is very badly, and very strongly, divided, almost right down the middle. Not a good sign. Anger at each other can tear this country apart faster than supposed terrorists can.

  2. This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular.

    Uh… Speaking for myself, I always prefer being right over being popular. I guess that’s why I don’t get invited to… you know…

    1. Libertarian’s don’t get invited to anything. We sit on our front porch, with our guns and our weed and our foreign spouses, admiring our empty and orderly lawns.

      1. You may be right about that. But if you are, what does it say about the reason staff that they are the polar opposite to everything you list?

        1. I’m still trying to find that post of yours, John, where you basically stated that the Editorial Staff is remarkably vanilla and homogenised, right down to the DC Cookie Cutter of Bleefe Systems and Muzak selections, that renders them totally interchangeable and practically indistinguishable from each other, with the notable exception of Ronal’d Bejlij’s singular, tunnel-vision obsession with immortality.

          You even stated that Slacknipple is essentially a Vanilla, Token Gay version of KMW, and he is pretty much a boring, minivan or Prius driving dude who’s searching for similarly boring dude with a Brownstone and a picket fence.

          1. I should have kept that one. It really did nail them.

          2. Wait, there is more than one writer on this site?

            1. Very occasionally, they let Stephanie Slade out of her cage and give her a break from the drudgery that is the Monocle Mines.

              1. See, she’s diverse! They totally have a wide range of views above the cut.
                While not as bad as, oh let’s say the Fucking State Broadcaster of Canada, comparing them to The Spectator is just sad.

            2. Oh, and Ed Krayewski, whom I place as the Top Editor for 2016 in the Groovy List of Editorial Excellence, followed closely by A. Barton Hinklehiemerschmidt.

              1. Hinklehiemerschmidt is my name too!

                (in a dream I never had)

                1. -heimer- with an ei, not an ie. It’s German.

                  1. -heimer- with an ei, not an ie. It’s German.

                    Wisenheimer.

                  2. -heimer- with an ei, not an ie. It’s German.

                    You’re the guy who would suck all the fun out of any room full of joy and laughter to play the, “BUT I’M RIGHT!!!!!” Card(tm), aren’t you?

                    You could over-analyse a wet dream or a sensual nude to the point that being a eunuch might be more preferable, Ted.

              2. I heard from Lucy on some site. She was different.

                1. It was well before my time, Pro, and perhaps you can explain why the refrain she “must not be mentioned” is as popular as it is at H&R.

                  1. She who must not be mentioned has her own website? it’s quite amusing.

                    1. Was she unpopular in the manner in which Robby Soave, Nick Gillespie, and a few other writers seem to be?

                    2. No!

                      Except for the rabid misogynists in the audience, Lucy (PBUH) was beloved by all. When she was unceremoniously let go, all mention of her holy name was concerned to be too painful to read.

                    3. HM,

                      Thank you.

                    4. Was she unpopular in the manner in which Robby Soave, Nick Gillespie, and a few other writers seem to be?

                      *bludgeons Charles with the jawbone of an ass*

                      DON’T YOU EVER COMPARE LUCY TO ROBBY HORSES AND BREAKDANCIN’ GRAMPA!

                      Lucy was fired by an editor, whose name rhymes with “Fat Belch”, for fewer grammatical errors than the average count racked up by Froot Sooshi alone, never mind the rest of the staff, yet her work was more internally consistent, and varied in content, than most of the editorial staff at the time, and mos def more than Soave, Reason’s very own walking, talking, breathing, Participation Trophy.

                      She also duked it out in the comments section, and treated The Commentariat as actual people.

                    5. Groovus,

                      I thought that you would only brandish jawbones (regardless of origin) after thoroughly preparing yourself for one of several defenses with regards to your well-understood weaknesses: feet . [This horrid segment of video is meant for Groovus in this particular, and for no other purpose]

                      She also duked it out in the comments section, and treated The Commentariat as actual people.

                      Would you agree with me that this is not advisable without certain warnings, especially for new writers? Regardless, thanks for the information/history.

      2. s/lawn/orphan

        1. Only one orphan? You’re going to get banished from the gulch at this rate

          1. Lawn was plural. The plural carries over.

      3. Libertarian’s don’t get invited to anything. We sit on our front porch, with our guns and our weed and our foreign spouses, admiring our empty and orderly lawns.

        Even if we were invited, we wouldn’t go.

        1. We’ll just send a check and a nice bottle of something.

          1. We’ll just send a check and a nice bottle of something.

            Hmm… Is it possible that, rather than the expected libation, the bottle contained a message?

            Included in that message, might there be found the word praxeology?

            1. It just going to be the first bottle in his praxeology drink of month club. The first month includes a bottled feeling of unease.

          2. Delivered by a child slave, of course.

          3. “We’ll just send a check and a nice bottle of something.”4
            Urine?

      4. My wife is so white her skin glows in the dark.

        1. Russian, eh? Good on you, mate.

          1. No, that’s Ukrainian. Chjornobyl and all.

      5. We sit on our front porch, with our guns and our weed and our foreign spouses, admiring our empty and orderly lawns.

        It’s as if you’ve hacked into my security cameras.

        1. Why hack… when one is inside the house?

            1. …dge ripple?

              In your case, so’s appropos.-)

      6. Libertarian’s what don’t get invited to anything?

        1. Oh, hey, I didn’t even notice that.

          I wish Reason would hire you. I swear, they’re getting worse.

          1. How well do they pay?

            1. Well, they don’t believe in a minimum wage, so….

              1. Would you take a set of full frequent customer punch cards to the local Asian massage parlor?

      7. You have a lawn?

    2. Henry Clay was neither right nor President.

    3. But in this case you are wrong, so what does that say?

  3. I had a suspicion this would be the case. On election night, my wife was sure that Trump would win, because while there were a few really obnoxious anti-Trump people constantly posting on Facebook, a lot of others were completely silent about the election. She figured the quiet ones were going to vote for Trump but didn’t want to wade into the FB firestorm.

    I’m seeing that same thing now. There are some people posting constantly on FB about the immigration issue, but they are mostly Hillary supporters. There are still a lot of people being really quiet about this issue.

    1. That “silent majority” thing that Nixon and now Trump won with is real. Regular people with jobs and families don’t want to be lectured by SJWs, don’t want to be ruled by globalist organizations and the “elites” who run them, and don’t want a lot of Muslims moving into their neighborhoods. They get called names for saying it out loud so they generally keep their mouths shut, but they will vote for the guy who is on their side.

      1. None of these refugees will ever live in Nick’s neighborhood. They will never go to his kid’s schools and if they assault someone or commit a crime much less an act of terrorism, Nick won’t be the victim. Nick will never have any contact with them and his life will not change one bit as a result of their coming. That doesn’t stop him from smugly lecturing those people whose towns and neighborhoods they will live in and who will be at risk of being a victim or a crime or terrorism or see the quality of life where they live reduced. You see it is their job to sacrifice for people like Nick’ principles.

        You want to know how we got Trump? Nick Gillespie is a small but very illustrative example of why.

        1. This

        2. Quite some humble brag there.

          1. It is the truth. Nick doesn’t give a shit about the social costs associated with these refugees. He won’t suffer them.

            1. You don’t either. You don’t give a shit about much except spouting a shit-ton of words, some even spelled properly.

              1. How do you know I don’t care? I am saying I do. That is more than you can say for Nick. He doesn’t even mention it.

                And it is funny as hell to hear one of the resident half wits who is constantly claiming I try to engage in “mind reading” by holding them to the logical consequences of what they say, now actually claiming to know what I think and know that it is really the opposite of what I say.

            2. What amazes me is that Nick (and other Reason authors, and many libertarians in general) don’t seem to give a shit about the social or political costs of refugees. It’s one thing when we take in refugees from communism, who will do whatever it takes to avoid remaking the US into another communist shithole. Unfortunately, the Muslims fleeing shithole Muslim countries seem to be unwilling to give up Islam, which is a large part of what made their countries shitholes in the first place.

              So it’s like taking refugees from communism who were on the losing side in a civil war, but still want communism. As if we were taking in Old Bolsheviks and Trotskyites because they were refugees from Stalin. Why is it so hard to see that Islam is the most anti-libertarian force in the world today? What possible good for liberty can come from bringing more of that into the USA?

              1. Why is it so hard to see that Islam is the most anti-libertarian force in the world today? What possible good for liberty can come from bringing more of that into the USA?

                Even assuming all of that is true, the party line is that “I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” Even if it comes at a direct political cost to my goals, it would be inappropriate for me to restrict the freedom of movement of these people in the furtherance of those goals. Having principles sucks sometimes, but right doesn’t change just because the people in question are icky at a higher than average rate

                1. Nobody has been able to answer to me how freedom of movement is a basic libertarian principle. I’ve tried bringing it up a few times, and it always gets ignored.

                  Here’s the question I’ve been asking:

                  What is so special about a government that eliminates its free association rights, including the right to collectively own property? I cede that government is an imperfect and coercive association. I further cede that government does not have any special rights, and that any rights the government has are the imputed rights of its citizens.

                  Still, what makes the government’s property any less controllable by the government leaders than Walmart’s property is by Walmart’s execs?

                  1. Some libertarians, such as Walter Block, claim there is no freedom of movement. I vehemently disagree. Even Block admits that if a first piece of property surrounds a second piece of property (the island effect), the second piece of property includes an access easement. If you translate this into the world at large, you come up with what is called the simple-connectedness proviso. This proviso claims that any property distribution is unjust if it does not provide simple-connectedness between any two pieces of property. This means there must be a legal way to get from one piece of property to any other piece of property (though it may be a round-about way), if invited. This translates to a de facto freedom of movement.

                    1. First off, thanks for the response! I really appreciate it!

                      I can certainly go for simple-connectedness. It sounds like a good start for justifying easements. However, I think that we need to see easements for what they are… pragmatic compromise of property rights for the liberty rights of another. For that reason, I don’t think that we can call freedom of movement a core libertarian principle. Some libertarians may favor freedom of movement over freedom from trespass. Others may favor the opposite. Both rights must be protected to an extent, but I can’t think of any libertarian concept that draws the line between these rights.

                      I see a core issue surfacing in the immigration debate: What control does the property owner have over the placement and the use of the easement?

                      If you need to pass through my property to get to the public road, I can tell you to do it down a certain gravel path. I can also tell you that you have to go through a procedure to use the easement (such as unlocking the gate, opening the gate, driving through, and locking the gate behind you). As such, it seems that the government can burden immigration with procedural and substantive requirements without going afoul of libertarianism, per se. The question, then, is where those lines are for required protection of rights (that I mentioned above). I’m not sure I can answer that question satisfactorily.

                    2. That is a good question, who determines how to balance right of movement with freedom from trespass? In a libertarian society, the courts would decide, and the court decision would reflect societal mores. It would probably only be an issue for property owners that own long thin pieces of land or whose land completely surrounds other property. As for national borders, this is a different issue. There is not a single landowner across the Mexican border. In fact, the federal government is going to have to violate property rights and use eminent domain to put up a wall.

                    3. There is not a single landowner across the Mexican border. In fact, the federal government is going to have to violate property rights and use eminent domain to put up a wall.

                      Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that part very much. I had always abstracted it out in my head to a glorified fiefdom with castle walls surrounding the town.

                      Setting that aside for a moment, the hardest part I have is distinguishing one form of collective rights from another. What allows a corporation to reject people from their property, but keeps the government from doing the same? I guess the argument would be that the government owned property (roads and the like) is an easement, and they can’t ban people from using the easement, whereas the corporation’s land isn’t inhibiting anybody from freedom of movement.

                      Anyway, I’m not particularly well read on this issue, nor am I dug in on my opinions, so I appreciate you humoring my factfinding mission.

                    4. *contains an easement . . .

                    5. government owned property (roads and the like)

                      well the thing about easements is that they exist as part of the common law – which is to say that even though the government polices them and can say what you do on them, it can’t prevent you from moving through them. Doing otherwise would violate the notion of an easement. If I own a house in the middle of a forest, and the government buys all of the land around my forest and claims it as a wildlife preserve not to be traveled on by man, I could sue and win, because I have to be able to get out per the common law (which precedes the constitution)

                  2. Still, what makes the government’s property any less controllable by the government leaders than Walmart’s property is by Walmart’s execs

                    Nothing – if the government wants to restrict people from being in the national parks, that’s the governments business. But the government of the United States does not have a property interest in all of the land inside its borders. The most it can claim is a monopoly of the use of aggressive force within those borders. I would be very on edge if someone legitimately started to posit that the government “owns” my land. Now there are countries which do claim as part of their constitutions, etc. that the final owner of all land is the government – but we’re not one of them and you’d see a ton of people in the streets if that were to ever change

                2. But FearToFear, what about a group that is initiating a slow form of force against you? They simply populate your country, and change the customs and even laws to suit themselves. Look at every large Muslim neighborhood in Europe. Imagine a woman who owned a butcher shop and a saloon in one of those neighborhoods and liked to wear short skirts: her liberty is impaired. (If not her personal safety.) Look at birthrates, and much of Europe will be Islamic in 50-100 years. It’s slow cultural conquest by an anti-liberty force.

                  Why isn’t it self defense to stand against that?

                  1. But FearToFear, what about a group that is initiating a slow form of force against you? They simply populate your country, and change the customs and even laws to suit themselves.

                    This word “force,” I don’t think it means what you think it means.

              2. Social and political costs…and culture. Completely 100% cannot be quantified, so is frequently ignored by the libertarian bean counters. But should the light that is Western civilization be extinguished because worshipers at the alter of open borders couldn’t put a dollar value on it…we all lose.

                1. All it takes is one property owner who decides people can pass through his land (he would probably make good money for this) and border controls mean nothing.

              3. I feel the same way about Californicators moving into my town. Can the EO apply to them please?

              4. “…don’t seem to give a shit about the social or political costs of refugees..”
                And here you show you’re prog logic. Insert “social cost of big corporations/hate speech/sexist jokes/unregulated pharmaceutical prices/unregulated gun ownership” or almost anything else for that matter.

                Every voluntary choice has social costs. Selling a gun, digging an oil well, buying foreign goods, etc. Libertarians would argue, however, that there are also enormous benefits to such voluntary transactions that, though more dispersed, exceed the costs.

                Likewise, immigrants get jobs, generate goods and services, thereby driving down the costs of such goods for the general public, and they spend the money they earn, financing someone else’s livelihood. So why here do so many feel justified assuming that the social costs of some number of people immigrating here exceeds the benefits? Where did you do the math?

                1. Screw the math, forget the ideological principles for now, just look at Rotherham and Malmo and Cologne. If libertarianism can’t stop that process, it’s doomed, along with traditional Western civilization.

        3. This is such a strange claim to make. Do you really think that refugees don’t settle in Los Angeles? Or that terrorist attacks never target journalists, or high profile landmarks?

          For petty crime, or kids who are behind in school, this would be a reasonable point, but it’s really strange to apply it to the terrorism risk associated with refugee resettlement.

        4. “None of these refugees will ever live in Nick’s neighborhood.”

          SO WHAT? This is just another one of those stupid emotional appeals which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore it’s the same type of emotional drivel that the leftists keep trying to use on us whenever we support reducing the welfare state. “But you won’t ever FEEL what it’s like to be poor and downtrodden, if you did, you’d support lavish welfare for all poor people, what about your COMPASSION???” This isn’t about any sort of personal connection (or lack thereof) to refugees. This is about the principled and right thing to do.

        5. You know, it’s funny. A few months ago, a lot of us were going at you over your support for Trump’s suggestion of a ban on Muslim immigration. It was pretty common for commenters to suggest, and even a good many of the columnists here seemed to imply, that not taking people from terrorist hellholes or just vetting people coming here more thoroughly made a lot more sense. And the thing is, we won. You lost. Trump isn’t pushing a ban on Muslim immigration. The places where he’s saying don’t take immigration from are places where, effectively, you can’t vet the people coming here. The Reason staff should be doing a victory lap. Yet, they’re acting like the alternative they seemed to suggest defines the onset of fascism.

        6. Most of the Syrians/Lebanese/Iraqis I’ve met have been doctors or nurses, so why would I not want them living in my neighborhood (incidentally I live in a poor neighborhood, while they probably live in the wealthy suburbs)? And while most of the Somalis I’ve known were uber drivers, in general they’ve been more courteous than, say, native-born black people.

          The idea that, say, Arabs, are by and large a ‘problem population’ in the US compared to Latinos, Italians, Chinese, etc. is primarily the product of your febrile imagination.

        7. @John

          We can take your argument to the next level and say that everyone who opposes refugees coming in will never live in Syria. They will never have to get enslaved, raped, and murdered by ISIS. But that doesn’t stop them from smugly lecturing people who want to help those refugees escape about how elitist they are. Because apparently it’s elitist to not want shut innocent people in with monsters. Were the people who rescued Elizabeth Smart elitist, because it’s infinitesimally possible she might commit a crime in the future?

          You are literally saying that’s it’s okay to stop tens of thousands of innocent people from escaping slavers, rapists, and murderers; because there’s a tiny chance some of them might commit a crime or a terrorist attack.

          If Nick is smug, that’s because he has a right to be. He really is better than all those people he’s allegedly looking down his nose at. Way, way better than them. He should look down his nose at them. Because when he was asked the question: “How many innocent people are you willing to allow to be tortured and raped in order to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack in the US?” he answered “zero.” They answered “tens of thousands.”

          It’s pretty hard to come back from that. It’s impossible to be any more morally bankrupt without committing a major felony.

          1. Being a felon, (even a “major felon”) does not equate with being morally bankrupt. Illegal does not always mean immoral.

      2. Add to that, don’t want to be delayed when trying to go home, pick up their kids from school, or fly out of town.

        Dumpshit anti-trumpers seem to be doing all they can to piss off the great mass of don’t give a shit, just want to live my life and be left alone.

  4. I’ve read enough of the horror stories out of Germany, France, and Sweden to be on board with a thorough vetting of anyone coming here from a predominately Muslim country. All this hand-waving about how no Muslim refugee has committed a terrorist act is distractionary bullshit; I’m worried about more pedestrian stuff like the rapes, assaults, riots that seem to go hand in hand with the wholesale importation of a culture that is fundamentally and hopelessly at odds with our own.

    1. I’ve read enough of the horror stories out of Germany, France, and Sweden to be on board with a thorough vetting of anyone coming here from a predominately Muslim country

      If the horror stories are happening in Germany, France and Sweden then one would think those would be the countries we find concerning.

      After all…

      1. We should find certain populations in those country’s very concerning. Even Nick admits we have an Islamic terrorism problem, though this is likely to be the only time in his life he will do so.

        1. John’s argument in a nutshell: Government should generalize and stereotype about an entire class of people, and then regard members of that class suspiciously as if they adhered to that stereotype.

          I’m sure John would just *love* his government stereotyping him as a pro-lifer who wanted to blow up abortion clinics, or as a gun owner who had insurrectionist fantasies, and then suspiciously treating John as if he is already guilty of these crimes and acting accordingly.

          1. If there were tens of thousands of examples of pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics, or gun owners starting insurrections since, say, 9/11/01, you might have a point. But there aren’t, so you don’t.

            Meanwhile, there have been tens of thousands of actual terror attacks that have happened at the hands of Muslims. Tens of thousands of women raped by Muslims…~1,500 just in one city in England…1,000+ sexual assaults across Germany just on New Years Eve 2015. Who knows the number of heads cut off and gays thrown from rooftops only to be stoned by the crowd below, but it’s a damned sight more than whatever pro-lifers are doing. And polls suggest that majorities of Muslims who might not personally do this stuff support it being done on behalf of their death cult religion.

            You have to be suicidal to want more of that here.

            1. So, every rape is a terror attack now? AND a hate crime?

              No. No. Ugh, this is confusing. The rape is a terror attack, but reporting the rape is a hate crime. Does that look right?

              Man, I’m sure one of these options is right, I just can’t decide which one. I need a ruling!

              1. No a rape is a rape. Something we don’t want. The set of things we don’t want includes terrorists, murderers, and rapists. Probably some others too.

            2. “If there were tens of thousands of examples of pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics, or gun owners starting insurrections since, say, 9/11/01, you might have a point. But there aren’t, so you don’t.”

              This is a bullshit dodge and you know it. You and I both know damn well that even if there WERE tens of thousands of examples of pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics, that you as an individual pro-lifer (assuming for the moment that you are one) would utterly resist being treated BY YOUR GOVERNMENT as if you were guilty of a crime that you did not commit, and you would be absolutely right in doing so. We know this because every single time some gun nut commits some crime, and the left denounces “gun culture” as the real source of blame – i.e., trying to cast collective guilt on every single gun owner for the specific actions of a few – that the NRA, the right, and most libertarians correctly denounce such collectivization of guilt.

              You would have to be suicidal if you want to endorse the ideology of collective guilt.

              1. Did you read the part where the EO is a temporary ban to improve the vetting process?

              2. “would utterly resist being treated BY YOUR GOVERNMENT as if you were guilty of a crime that you did not commit”

                No one is arguing this. No one wants to lock up all Muslims for 9/11, despite your narrative.

                The fact is, is that everyone classifies threats from repetition of harm. Even you. Its natural selection.

                And there is a point, where enough members of any group of people tend to do shit things, that you yourself will categorize the rest and shift the burden of proof to them to prove otherwise. Or even just assume they’re dangerous/shitty too.

                Unless you’re willing to give every individual KKK member or Nazi the benefit of the doubt as to whether they’re decent individuals. In which case I’ll say I’m wrong.

                1. Unless you’re willing to give every individual KKK member or Nazi the benefit of the doubt as to whether they’re decent individuals.

                  If it were only a question of what people’s personal opinions about Muslims were, there would be no issue. The problem is that government policies are involved, and surely you realize that that’s about more than just opinion.

            3. If there were tens of thousands of examples of pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics, or gun owners starting insurrections since, say, 9/11/01, you might have a point.

              No, he wouldn’t; freedom is more important than safety. Government thugs shouldn’t try to control what people believe or stop people from owning guns, even if there are often abuses.

    2. They already got a pretty thorough check before Daddy’s ban. What further measures would you put in place to ensure that the people emigrating to the US from Muslim countries would make good permanent residents?

      Also, 0.245% of the population hardly qualifies as “wholesale importation”

      1. What further measures would you put in place to ensure that the people emigrating to the US from Muslim countries would make good permanent residents?

        Ensure they are not Muslim would be a good start. If they are not Muslim, they are unlikely to be Muslim terrorists. You know?

        1. Brought to you courtesy, of the red, white and blue.

          1. How many Buddhist or Syrian Catholics have become Islamic terrorists?

            You do realize we have an Islamic terrorism problem? You can admit that now. The jacket says so.

            1. John, you should read up on the history of Southeast Asia, and also Google what the Irish Republican Party is. They kinda invented terrorism.

          2. * looks up as the Blue Angles throttle by in the missing man formation

            *takes another swallow of beer

        2. So you only want to screen out Muslim terrorists? The other kind are good to come, eh?

            1. SHH Crusty is hunting Terrowists! But not the Muslim kind. The real terroowists

          1. Yes. There doesn’t seem to be any other kind these days. Are there Buddhist terrorists that are shooting up gay clubs and flying planes into buildings I haven’t heard about?

            1. And how many Muslim refugee terrorists have been in the US recently?

              Keep whistling, it’ll keep the pink elephants at bay while you pretend there are no gray ones.

              1. How many Muslim terrorists have there been? Quite a few last I looked. So if they are not Muslim, they are not going to be Muslim terrorists now will they?

                1. John, do you know what percentage of terror attacks in Europe over the last few years were caused by Muslims? You won’t believe the answer! It’s going to blow your mind.

              2. I mostly just lurk here, and I don’t want to get on anyone’s bad side, but I guess that depends on your definition of “recent”. 2009? 2011? http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=20931131

        3. What is really lame is this incredible lack of imagination on all the Muslim haters. Did not the 9-11 hijackers put up with all shorts of heathen savage shit while here? Would a Muslim terrorist refuse to come here because he’d have to put up with our culture? Hell no, they’d pretend to be Christian if they had to. Screening out Muslims in the blind hope it will screen out Muslim terrorists is whistling past the graveyard.

          It shouldn’t take even a moment’s reflection to extrapolate from the lack of attacks by Muslim terrorists. But you Muslim haters won’t even take that baby step.

          1. Would a Muslim terrorist refuse to come here because he’d have to put up with our culture? Hell no, they’d pretend to be Christian if they had to. Screening out Muslims in the blind hope it will screen out Muslim terrorists is whistling past the graveyard.

            Hold it. Before we go any further, let me get one thing straight. You meant here are real Muslim terrorists? That is just racist. I don’t think that is true. I have been reading these boards too long not to know that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism.

            And please go find me one instance in the history of the world where a Muslim terrorist, assuming such a thing even exists, ever pretended to be anything other than a Muslim. And it is not to hard to screen out Muslims. Their names are different than the Christians who come from these countries for one thing.

            1. Whoosh!

              *that’s the sound of Muslim terrorists in Syria rushing to change their names to John Smith

          2. Do you lock your front door, Scarecrow? That’s pointless, because someone could always break in through a window. Have bars on the windows? That’s stupid, because someone could always cut through a wall.

            Security doesn’t have to be perfect to be worthwhile.

            1. And then there’s security theater like the entire TSA.

              1. Much of the “theater” aspect there is to avoid the appearance of the dreaded “profiling.” So we all must pretend that Grandma Linda is just as much of a potential threat as young Muhammad.

              2. The difference seems to be that individuals left alone will assess risks and protect themselves accordingly, while leaving security in the hands of the government turns into a jobs program for the worthless who steal, do anything they want, and also don’t do a very good job at security.

                1. My judgment of risks tells me that Muslims are a threat to my liberty and safety. So, I want the government to keep them out. I do not think this is inconsistent with libertarian values. I don’t feel that “freedom of movement” trumps all the others.

                  1. “I have feels. I want the government to fix this for me. I see no inherent libertarian conflict here.”

                    Well, shit. There’s no way to refute that. That’s irrefutable, right there.

                    1. Fear of Islam is not just about “feels,” it’s about body counts and personal freedoms. It astonishes me that commenters around here seem more afraid of trivial bullshit like police puppycides than about the spread of the most anti-libertarian ideology on the planet today.

                    2. Well, police are statistically a genuine threat, whereas Muslim terrorist are statistically as threatening as your bathtub.

                      But yeah, I’m sure it’s us and not you.

                      Sigh. Look, Papaya. Let’s not be shitty, one with each other. In my entire life, the threats have come from the government. Never once from Muslims. The Muslims never bothered me when I got divorced, the Muslims didn’t get involved in my driving habits, they don’t care how much I make, they’ve never threatened my children. (Oh, I’m sure they have. I just ignore it because my own government does so constantly, I see my own government agents who threaten my family far more than I do Muslims of any threat level, and that consumed a bit more of my attention.)

                      You have different experiences and priorities. Fine. Lovely. You do you, Papaya. I support your choices. Can you do the same for me?

                      Or is this just your fears versus my fears, and bugger the math about which fear is more likely to GETCHOO in the middle of the night; the real winner is whichever of us shouts down the other on the internet.

                      There has got to be a better way.

                    3. I will admit I am focused on longer-term threats than you are. But I am wary of purely statistical arguments. The odds of dying in an attack on 12/6/1941 or 9/10/2001 were vanishingly small. I also hate to see what is happening in Europe, in not-so-slow motion. Finally, I think the issues with cops are more easily solved, because it’s a problem within a culture. Problems between different cultures are much more problematic.

        4. “Ensure they are not Muslim would be a good start”

          America! Land of the free and home of the brave…. unless you’re a Muslim!

          1. America is not for people who want to destroy America.

            1. Okay, fine. If someone says “I want to destroy America” you don’t let that person in.

              But what you don’t do is *presume* that a person wanting entry desires to destroy America just because that person has a particular religion or national origin.

              1. I can fairly presume that a Nazi or Communist wants a political system that reflects those beliefs, which contradict the Constitution. It is no different to assume that a Muslim wants a political system that reflects Islamic beliefs, which are inextricably linked with politics. Muslims even admit that to pollsters.

                1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
                  Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
                  Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
                  Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
                  Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
                  BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam”.
                  The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).
                  The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad (64% disagree).

                2. “It is no different to assume that a Muslim wants a political system that reflects Islamic beliefs”

                  Yeah it is, because Islam is a religion with some political elements – LIKE ALL RELIGIONS have – unlike Nazism or Communism, which have no religious elements and are nothing but political ideologies.

                  Are we supposed to assume that every Jew wants to impose Halakha on whatever nation that Jew finds him/herself in? Or that every Christian is a Dominionist?

                  1. Islam is a complete system: religious, political, personal. It has no concept of separation of church and state, the way Christianity does. And the proof is in the pudding: look at every majority Muslim country. That’s mainstream Islam.

                    So Dominionists are not at all a good comparison: they are a tiny group, and no majority Christian country is run on those lines.

              2. What if they say I want Shariah law and it’s incompatibility with the BOR should be changed.

            2. Why do you hate so many Congresspersons, PapayaSF?

              1. For that very reason.

        5. How would you do that? Seriously, the friendlier alternative to “no refugees” has been “no refugees unless they’re not Muslim”, but nobody has put forth any way to reliably determine whether someone is a Muslim or not. I’m curious to know if there’s a scheme for that, if people have thought that far, or if this is just a canard to seem humanitarian on the issue without any real risk of having to act accordingly.

          1. There is no way to tell if someone is *genuinely* a Muslim or not. What John wants to do is to ban people who have Muslimy-sounding names.

            1. Here’s a way-

              “Are you a Muslim”

              “Yes”

              Disapproved.

              Here’s another- are you from the Middle East?

              Disapproved

              Because who gives a fuck since we need zero people from the Middle East. I’ve yet to figure out why the US has to accept anyone for any reason we fucking want. A principle that no other country follows, yet the people handwringing about it never seem to care about that reciprocity either.

        6. The problem is that Islamic terrorism is an idea, not a nationality – and can cross borders via the internet with or without a Trump ban.

          1. An idea cannot rape, assault, or kill you, A person harboring such ideas, however…. well, ask those Yazidis, for example. Or Euro-landia, provided you can get truthful numbers for demonstrable assaults and rapes, since governments never have incentive to massage numbers sympathetically to a given narrative.

            1. Be nice if the truth were an ideal to be pursued, rather than an inconvenience to be explained away.

    3. Me too. They seem so hell-bent on enforcing their version of libertarian ideology that they ignore the consequences completely. The chaos in western Europe is completely predictable.

      The West has been at war with Islam for 1400 years. Western / classical civilization suffered huge losses (the Byzantine Empire, Vandal North Africa), and fought for centuries to reclaim and defend the Iberian Pennisula and Eastern Europe.

      For some reason people in the West think the war ended – most are too poorly educated to even put an arbitrary date on it like 1829 when the Greeks finally shook off Ottoman rule. The Islamic leaders don’t think it’s over, they’ve just changed tactics to infiltration and demographics rather than invading armies.

      We are supposed to play along with the idea that Muslim immigration is a good deal, despite mountains of recent and historical evidence to the contrary.

      1. They cannot conceive of the idea that there might be people out there that you don’t want living next door to you besides the people who live in places like Alabama and dine at Olive Gardens

        1. Well, I don’t think they would want to import a million dedicated Nazis. They just won’t admit that Islam is just as totalitarian and a great deal harder to deal with than Nazism.

          1. Yeah. It isn’t just Muslims that you don’t want living next door to you.

      2. “to reclaim and defend”? Really? Christians had a *right* to those areas? It was one set of dictatorial religious rulers bashing other dictatorial religious rules.

        Fuck Christians. Fuck Muslims. Fuck all religious despots. Fuck all despots. That includes all you shit-for-brain wanne-be religious despots so eager to tell everyone else which religions belong where.

        1. Fuck Western culture, education, science, arts, and civilization too! Right?

        2. Christians had a *right* to those areas?

          Well, as much right as the French had to France during WWII, yes.

          1. Less, idiot. Religion is not territorial. Country names are.

            1. Those wars were explicitly religious wars, and the side that was aggressed against was the Christian side (mostly). The rulers were Christian or Muslim, and claimed the right to rule on explicitly religious grounds. Asking whether the Muslims or the Christians had the better claim on the disputed territory is appropriate, given the historical context at the time.

              Less name-calling. More facts. Thanks.

              1. Asking whether the Muslims or the Christians had the better claim on the disputed territory is appropriate, given the historical context at the time.

                Less name-calling. More facts. Thanks.

                If we’re really playing the ‘whichever religion got there first deserves it’ game, we’ve got to give a lot of land to the bloody neo-pagans.

            2. I’d dare say that those living in a predominately Muslim country where non-Muslims are viciously and freely persecuted would take issue with the idea that religion isn’t territorial.

            3. What happened to all those Yazidis, again? What’s happening to all the surviving Yazidi women now?

          2. What the fuck are a collection of people likely descended from a collection of Germanic barbarians that conquered an empire doing claiming land as “definitely ours, not theirs.”

            Seriously, if we want to play this game, we’ll play this game. Italy will be very happy with its new borders. Except we’ll have to figure out which ones are descended from filthy Lombards and Normans and make them not Italians…

            1. John Titor, why do you hate Western culture, education, science, arts, and civilization?

              1. It’s especially bloody rich because, thanks to being North Americans, we’ll go full Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue over Amerindians but then moan about how this land was ‘ours’ because Eastern Roman Empire.

                1. Look, the Pope gave Spain most of the Western Hemisphere. It’s like how Nixon secretly annexed the Moon.

                2. So presumably America can start a war of aggression anywhere now because nobody has a claim to any land. That’s your claim that it was okay for the Islamic Caliphate, so why wasn’t it okay for everyone else?

                  1. If you want to play the ‘claim to land’ game Lurk, the United States by its very nature is illegitimate. I don’t believe that to be the case, but if you’re even moderately consistent that’s the nature consequence of that argument. Of course, you won’t actually hold yourself to that standard, because this is more about tribalist shrieking about The Other rather than some noble idea of who has ‘just claim’.

            2. JT, the choice was whether Christians or Muslims have the better claim to territory conquered by Muslims and formerly ruled and occupied by Christians.

              If you want to expand it to include other prior occupants, go right ahead. I would note that doing so doesn’t help the Muslim claim (which is still outstanding in some circles) to being the proper rulers of that territory.

              1. The choice now is – do we want what happened to North Africa in the 7th Century to happen in Europe and North American?

                1. do we want what happened to North Africa in the 7th Century

                  “The conquering barbarians I like are good, the conquering barbarians I don’t like are bad.”

                  1. I, for one, appreciate the dispassionate commentary on the subject.

                    1. The fucking collectivism seeping out of the H&R commentariat as of late puts the comments section on par with both breitbart and salon.

                    2. What do you mean, MWG?

                    3. Where now a country in a constant state of fear. I always thought it would come from the left, but whatever. The terrorist really have won.

                    4. We’re. Fuck it. I’m going to bed.

                    5. Sorry charles. That was meant to go to my comment below. I mean collectivism is the antithesis of libertarianism. At breitbart, the “alt-right” has all, but taken over and at salon socialist have pretty much always run the place. Collectivism is where Trump meets Bernie Sandars when it comes to trade, for example.

                    6. Thank you for clarifying, MWG.

                      I think that you and a few others who read and post comments in the H&R comment section (and perhaps several of us who read yet do not make comments) might agree with your own opinion that some form of “collectivist” mindset/groupthink is prevalent.

                    7. Have you tried crying about it? Because you sound like a crying little bitch right about now. Didn’t you get enough Muslim dick in your ass this morning?

                    8. Great, John’s brilliant “DUR HUR, YOU LOVE MUSLIMS” point is getting spread around, but even more idiotic, and now with more “UR GAY”.

                    9. Answer the question, John Titor!

                      DO YOU WANT 7TH CENTURY MUSLIM DICK IN YOUR NORTH AMERICAN ASS OR NOT?!?!

                    10. Why are you collectivizing the commentariat.

                  2. Oh fuck just answer the fucking question, you stupid dickless fuck. I’ll repeat it for the dude in case you’re too fucking stupid to remember:

                    “Do we want what happened to North Africa in the 7th Century to happen in Europe and North American?”

                    Never mind your brilliant display of historical knowledge–yes or no, you autistic asshole?

                    1. “If you don’t accept my stupid premise, hysterical conclusions and answer the shitty strawman based on my bloody ignorance you’re an asshole! And you’re autistic if you actually know the history!”

                      How about fuck you, get on my level.

                    2. Rookies should lurk moar. It seems like crass and sass for a couple of weeks, sure. Then you realize that even the stupid members of the commentariat can spell “obstreperous”, use it correctly to insult your mother, and have a hobby reading list that makes them an untapped expert on 18th century architecture and trade routes of the Middle Ages.

                    3. @LurkinInaBuildin

                      “Do we want what happened to North Africa in the 7th Century to happen in Europe and North American?”

                      Of course not. It’s a good thing that letting in refugees won’t make that happen. Muslim-Americans are a model minority who assimilate effortlessly.

                      What I don’t want is what happened in Germany and Poland in 1944 to happen in Syria today. In the years before that happened, Americans could have taken all 6 million victims in. They could have saved everyone. But they didn’t. Because of people like you.

              2. to being the proper rulers of that territory.

                Thus sayth the man squatting on Indian land. Go to the nearest reservation, hand them the keys to your house, and then you get to discuss ‘proper rulers of territory’. You draw an arbitrary line to demonize the conquests of ‘their group’, and justify or handwave the conquests of ‘your group.’ Shitty, basic and transparent human tribalism.

          3. After people have lived in a place for a few generations, it gets a lot more complicated.

            1. For now, possession and sufficient military force is the whole of sovereignty. Unless humans become less violent, that’s what we’re stuck with.

              1. True that.

      3. Are you *really* trying to hold modern-day Muslims responsible for what some sultans did 1400 years ago?

        1. You do know that the Quran says it is the destiny of Muslims to rule the world as a theocratic dictatorship, right?

          1. I’ve never read the Quran.

            I’ve read the Bible, repeatedly. Reading the Quran doesn’t seem it would lend your comment gravitas.

            We have a second amendment for those times you are afraid, Papaya. I’d rather you employed that, than use the government as your weapon of choice.

            1. That’s just ridiculous. It’s a lot easier to just stop importing a problem than to wait for it to get worse and then advise everyone to solve it with gunfire.

              1. *bookmarks, coz this is gonna be gud*

                I would love to hear your thoughts on what the second amendment should be used for, Papaya. Especially in situations when the government claims to be able to solve a problem better than individuals.

                1. Of course I’m not denying that’s what the 2A is for, but as Groovus says, I want to prevent the situation from happening in the first place.

            2. I don’t want to shoot someone in the process of raping the everloving shit out of my wife and children if I can prevent from happening in the first place.

              In UKR, Hammy, my wife and I have a policy of, “Shoot First, Ask Questions Later” **

              **: And if necessary, call in a favour or pay the local Oligarch or Fixer to make the problem, or its resultant aftermath, “go away.”

              1. I am mystified as to what I said that implied anything about shooting someone in the act of raping your wife.

                Otherwise, I completely agree and applaud your decision. ‘Round my parts, we have something called SSS.

                Shoot, shovel, shut up.

                1. I am mystified as to what I said that implied anything about shooting someone in the act of raping your wife.

                  Rape of women by Rapefugees in Euro-landia is a real problem, and it’s being both underreported and flat out covered up by both medical and gov authorities in countries such as GER and UK (I have been told this by docs from both countries – the rule is “unofficial”, but still done.

                  My point is the same as Papaya’s – Don’t let the problem in through the front door, so’s I don’t have to shoot anyone at all. Why should I put my family in more danger just to pacify and assuage others’ consciences and FEELZ ?

                  1. Why should I put my family in more danger just to pacify and assuage others’ consciences and FEELZ ?

                    The identifiable emotion in the room is fear, and I am not afraid.

                    If I am arguing from emotion, name it.

                  2. The reason people think there’s a refugee rape problem in Europe is the same reason that people think there’s a campus rape problem at colleges. The definition of rape has been vastly expanded, as has the way rapes have been reported. Oddly, people who are justly skeptical of the “campus rape epidemic” swallow the “refugee rape epidemic” hook, line, and sinker.

                    And even if it wasn’t all BS, it’s pretty morally bankrupt to say that you’re willing to let ISIS rape and torture tens of thousands of people because it will decrease the danger to your family by an infinitesimal amount.

                    If you see some guy being chased through the streets by a knife-wielding maniac, and he tries to run past you to escape, would you bar his way? After all, you don’t know anything about him, he might commit rape some day. Better to let the maniac finish him off, right?

                    1. The reason people think there’s a refugee rape problem in Europe is the same reason that people think there’s a campus rape problem at colleges.

                      Incorrect. My wife and I are physicians, and we live in Eastern EUR. The reason there is a rape problem is men are pushing their digits and members into women forcibly and without their permission. In the countries I referenced, medical staff are either downplaying, or reclassifying attacks if the perp’s appearance is of certain descriptions and demographies.

                      it’s pretty morally bankrupt to say that you’re willing to let ISIS rape and torture tens of thousands of people because it will decrease the danger to your family by an infinitesimal amount.

                      ISIS is the premier example why Open Borders don’t work. I would rather bomb ISIS off the planet than distribute the disease equally to everybody. What specific percentage of rapes of a given native population are comfortable with? A concrete number, please.

                      Your last example, I would try to subdue both, if possible. Obviously, there is a problem; I just have to hope that neither are Mafia.

              2. I believe I am paying the federal government to do its duty to protect our borders. If that’s not going to happen I will defend my castle but I want my money back so I can invest in better weaponry.

            3. If you’re commenting on this topic and have not even bothered to read a Quran then you’re talking out of your ass like a complete moron.

              There is at least one major qualitative thematic difference between the Quran and both Jewish & Christian scriptures, and no, it has nothing to do (in this particular case) with God commanding people to conquer and subjugate, which the Tanakh also obviously commands.

              1. I’ll take this as a confession you have never read the Bible. Otherwise, you would have instantly known what I was referring to, and would never make such a remark knowing everyone who read the Bible would laugh at you.

                Although if you read your comment completely severed from any contextual relevance to the conversation, it’s not bad general advice: Make sure you know your topic.

                1. I’ve read the Bible and I have no idea what you’re talking about.

              2. @LurkinInaBuildin

                There is no need for anyone to read the Quran, or to read any scripture to understand how its adherents behave. Scriptures are just flags people use to rally around, people who actually change their behavior based on a reading of religious scriptures are incredibly rare freaks.

                The vast majority of human beings are hypocrites who just act the same way everyone else in the nearby society acts. If that conflicts with their scripture they just come up with an elaborate rationalization for why it actually doesn’t. Even people who claim to be “fundamentalists” who are basing everything on scripture are usually deluded. They pretty much always just turn out to be generic authoritarians who rationalize that the scripture says to be a generic authoritarian.

                If there is no part of the Quran that justifies secularism, Muslims who want to be secular will just find a passage that sounds like it kind of fits and claim it does. It’s not hard, the famous “render unto Caesar” quote that everyone uses to claim the Christianity supports secularism can easily be interpreted to mean the exact opposite (Since everything ultimately belongs to God, you can read it to mean you should give Caesar nothing).

            4. Of course reading the Koran would make your comments more informed. I believed that Islam was just an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity. Then I sat down to read the Koran and quickly lost that delusion.

              1. Okay. Everyone completely miss Papaya’s original point about ancient religious texts and their bloodthirsty writers/editors. God knows that only ever happened with Muslims; every other religion is a religion of peace and love.

                But don’t take God’s book as evidence, you’re just supposed to know it in your heart while preferably pretending the scripture doesn’t exist.

                I know the OT is a slog, but fucking A, this level of obtuse cluelessness ought to be reserved for godless millennials. Does no one do VBS anymore?

          2. I am sure you could find plenty of faiths making the same claim. So what?

            1. So you’re theologically illiterate, with no knowledge of any religion’s scripture, and yet you’re here commenting on comparative religion? Who is the idiot here?

        2. I’m not trying punish anyone. I don’t think their beliefs or their methodology is one bit different now than it was then,

          I’m sure there were Goth Bishops and Nobles sitting around saying “Hey, those Muslim raiders aren’t going to amount to anything. No need to chase them off, what’s the worst that could happen?”

          1. ” I don’t think their beliefs or their methodology is one bit different now than it was then,”

            Who are “they”? Every single Muslim? Are you seriously saying that every single Muslim on the planet wants to behave just like the sultans did 1400 years ago?

            And why are you collectivizing and generalizing so much about them? Why not judge each one on his/her own merits, instead of presuming that they are all murderous terrorists? Would you personally rather be judged based on your own merits, or on some American stereotype?

            1. What percentage of Muslims would have to be supporters of bad actions before you would be willing to make a collective judgement? “Every single” communist did not run a gulag, so it would be fine if we imported a million of them? You really think it makes sense to judge each individual communist on their “individual merits”? It’s somehow unfair to judge an individual on the ideology they adhere to?

              1. “What percentage of Muslims would have to be supporters of bad actions before you would be willing to make a collective judgement? ”

                Well, let me ask the question in a different way. The “SF” in your nick means that you live in San Francisco, right? Well then:

                What percentage of San Franciscans would have to be supporters of “bad actions”, such as voting for Hillary, before you would be willing FOR OTHERS to make a collective judgment about YOU that you are just as guilty of the terrible, terrible decision of voting for Hillary as everyone else in your city?

                1. If someone said “San Franciscans mostly voted for Hillary,” I’d agree. I am an exception, true, so any blanket action against SFers would be unfair to me.

                  But the class of “living in San Francisco” is not really analogous to “being a Muslim.” Living in SF is not a belief system. Islam is. By definition, being in the class of “Muslim” means “having the Muslim belief system.”

            2. Hey, if we’re letting one in, I’ll treat him or her as an individual. If we’re going to import 3 million (like we have since 911) I’m going to consider it a group.

              1. Indeed, quantity matters.

      4. The chaos in western Europe is also something that won’t happen here where they can’t just wander in or wash up in boats. I don’t have a problem with not taking refugees. I don’t see any obligation, except maybe in places where US actions have directly made living there untenable. Geography screens out most of the lowlifes, who aren’t going to have the means and motivation to come here or won’t pass visa screening.

        1. Geography doesn’t screen out the lowlives pouring across our southern border.

          1. No, but I don’t think they pose the same threat as the Muslim lowlifes.

            1. The problem is linked.

              Also, California is going broke under the weight of illegal immigration, so it’s a different threat, but a real one.

            2. The right has really led the pussyfication of the US over the last year or so.

              1. Huh? I’m a pussy because I don’t want terrorists slipping over the Mexican border?

                1. Did you see those Pussy’s get shot in France? Holy shit man, there were these two tall buildings filled with pussies that collapsed. If I were there, with my 2nd amendment six shooter I’d have shot them planes out of the sky, where they woulda fell on a bunch of pussies!

                2. Talk about how afraid you are, and what everyone needs to do to protect your safe space, and watch an audience primed by Rico react accordingly.

                  This was predictable.

    4. Not just Germany, France and Sweden.

      The UK AND Italy. That’s four of Europe’s KEY civilizations under duress.

      1. Which one of the five is not one of the key ones?

    5. “I’ve read enough of the horror stories…”
      And I’ve read plenty of horror stories about the rape havens that college campuses are supposed to be. So what?

      “…the wholesale importation of a culture that is fundamentally and hopelessly at odds with our own.”
      There’s this thing called assimilation. People said the exact same thing when Catholics started coming over. Every Catholic country in the world was backwards, monarchical, poor, and intolerant; they were slaves to a medieval religion and thralls of an old man in Rome with a funny hat; they would never fit in to a Democratic socirty. Liberal ideals, tolerance, equality before the law, these were all protestant ideals. All of which was, IMO as irrelevant then as it is now.

      1. Catholics weren’t committing terror acts around the world. Probably the reason the public accepted them then, and doesn’t accept muslims now. I’d note that the catholic countries are pretty similar to our own, and the Islamic ones are not.

  5. New polls shows 49 percent support, versus just 41 percent against…

    Approve or disapprove, you’re in the minority.

    1. The best kind of correct!

  6. “This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular.”

    As long as you pick at least one.

    1. Considering it doesn’t even come close to the worst sort of xenophobia in the American psyche, it seems like Nick went with NOTA.

      Maybe if you circumscribe the American psyche to the last 3 days you approach something between right and popular.

  7. The only reason I ‘disapprove’ of this ‘ban’ is that it doesn’t COMPLETELY pause ALL immigration.

    1. Exactly.

      1. Did someone teck yer jerb?

        1. They are driving up my rents, clogging my roads, and sucking up my tax money.

  8. This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular. Trump’s order is based on hysteria and panders to the worst sort of xenophobia at work in the dark night of the American psyche. As important, it hurts our efforts in fighting Islamic terrorism by alienating allies in the Middle East.

    Luckily there was no hysteria in how it was reported, especially at Reason. And I had no idea Nick was fully on board with the Global War on Terrorism.

    1. As important, it hurts our efforts in fighting Islamic terrorism by alienating allies in the Middle East.

      This might be the first time Nick has ever admitted there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism much less a need to fight it.

    2. “alienating our allies”

      1. The geopolitical equivalent of “Don’t make the black kids mad.”

        1. What do you mean, PapayaSF?

          1. “Muslims aren’t terrorists, but if we do anything that offends Muslims, it will make them mad and create more terrorists!” It’s the same sort of PC-based placating and intentional blindness that people do in relation to black crime.

            1. PapayaSF,

              Has “black crime” been significantly increasing globally?

              1. I have no idea. I wrote “geopolitical equivalent” to make an analogy.

  9. Trying to vet immigrants in order to prevent terrorism is heartless and xenophobic.

    Instead we should abolish the 4th amendment and spy on everyone – that way we don’t look racist.

    When we do find terrorists we should bomb their countries and promote regime change.

    But vetting immigrants? No, that’s a horrible idea.

  10. Remember, the government is incompetent at everything, except vetting refugees. Vetting refugees is the one task that the government can be depended on to execute perfectly.

    1. No, they’re incompetent everything, except enforcing immigration laws. That they’re good at. Right?

  11. Trump’s order is based on hysteria and panders to the worst sort of xenophobia at work in the dark night of the American psyche.
    I dislike the order. I hate Trump. I don’t think it’s wise and w/r/t green cards I don’t think it’s moral or legal. (I’m agnostic about the claim that it will have a net negative effect; those predictors have a pretty low accuracy rate these days.)

    But it is almost certainly based on calculation, not hysteria:

    Under Obama, the overall sociopolitical discourse tended to ask whether we should enforce immigration laws; and whether we should put the interests of the U.S. before would-be immigrants. We wouldn’t really discuss issues like this, at least not openly. Trump’s goal is to change the discourse so that those two answers are “yes, of course” and we move on to discussing the boundaries of enforcement.

    1. Well said.

    2. I alluded to something similar in Nick’s clone article last night.

      I think Reason is treating this with hyper-reason to the point it’s irrational.

      Trump basically took the Risk board game and upended it.

      And I’m not so sure it’s for the worse.

      If I were to describe it, it would be along the lines of a guy grabbing another by the collar telling him ‘clean up your act or else I’m gonna do it for you’.

  12. I was supportive of the idea, but I learned from Justin Amash about some legal complications I hadn’t previously been aware of.

    We’ve already had enough of Presidents writing their own laws with their pens and phones, time for Congress to step up to the plate and handle these issues.

    1. What legal complications? The president has the authority to ban any class of immigrant if that class is deemed a threat to national security. And the previous administration did just that regarding these seven countries.

      1. I linked to some links hashing out the two sides (and yes, there are two sides) of this issue – there’s a law that immigration visas can’t be denied based on country of origin. The pro-EO argument by Andrew McCarthy waved that aside with a bunch of proggy crap about executive power (and this executive power stuff is proggy in origin).

        This doesn’t apply to *non*-immigrant visas, which can be denied for any reason.

        It’s not as if the universe of choices has narrowed to Trump is Hitler and Trump is Soooo Dreamy.

          1. I don’t care what Red State has to say. I know what the INA says. Moreover, I have seen how those provisions are actually applied. It doesn’t mean what Amish is saying.

            1. From the article: “This is the same mushy and standardless sort of textual interpretation that leftists love to use when there is a clear textual provision they don’t like.”

              1. The guy doens’t know what he is talking about. You can’t read the other section out of the act

                Section 1182(f), of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

                What do you “class of aliens” means? It means class as in nationality, religion, and other such. 1182 modifies the other section.

                The guy at Red State is a fucking moron, like pretty much everyone else on that site.

                1. The part you quote was passed in 1952. The national origin clause was passed in 1965.

                  Either these two laws should be read together, or the later one modifies the earlier one.

                  1. That just means it didn’t repeal the existing law. It just overlaid it. You don’t read one section of a statute as repealing another unless it explicitly says so. Otherwise, you read them in a way that they can be reconciled. It is assumed that Congress intended them to be reconciled or they would have said so.

                    Stop reading Red State. It will make you very stupid.

                    1. “you read them in a way that they can be reconciled.”

                      I thought I just did.

                      The national-origins law specifies exceptions – 1182 is *not* one of the specified exceptions.

                      The law *ought* to mean that the Pres can exclude (at least temporarily) potential immigrants from countries of particular concern…I’m just not convinced that the law as it *is* is the same as the law as it *ought to be.*

                    2. It is one of those exceptions. What the fuck are you even talking about? 1182 means what it says. And it doesn’t conflict with the other provision. To say it does reads it out of the fucking statute.

                    3. “it doesn’t conflict with the other provision. To say it does reads it out of the fucking statute.”

                      No, it doesn’t, what are *you* talking about?

                      The fact that Andrew McCarthy relies on Article II of the Constitution, and the Visa Waiver Program, to get past the national-origins law shows that it’s more of an obstacle than you indicate – at least McCarthy had to sweat to remove that obstacle from his way.

                    4. Here’s the law:

                      Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

                      Par. 2 is a rather broad exemption for SecState to establish procedures for processing applications.

                      1101(a)(27) is the definition of “special immigrant”.

                      1151(b)(2)(A)(i) is the definition of “immediate relative”.

                      1153, wait for it, authorizes the setting of per-country limits on immigration. But, if you read more than the first sentence of 1152, which has the non-discrimination language, it is chock full of references to per-country limits.

                      I am not an immigration lawyer, but our laws are full of per-country limits on immigration. A flat statement that those are illegal is wrong.

                      1182 itself is not subject to the anti-discrimination provision of 1152:

                      Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States

                      IOW, unless the immigration laws specifically provide an exception (and the anti-discrimination provision doesn’t count), 1182 governs.

                    5. I was relying on Andrew McCarthy’s defense of the executive order, and he was all about Article II and the Visa Waiver Program and legislative intent.

                      Your point is a new one for me – could Andrew McCarthy have made a poor defense of his position?

          2. You missed this part: I am not an immigration lawyer and do not claim any expertise in this area

            Trump is acting within the text of one law, and the spirit of another. Congress is welcome to refine the law.

            1. Trump isn’t an immigration lawyer either, so your point isn’t as powerful as you seem to think.

        1. They are not waiving that aside. The section that says it can’t be based on nationality is valid. But the section I and McArthy are referring to amend that section. The President can’t just ban nationalities because he wants to, but he can ban immigration of “entire classes” which necessarily includes nationalities, if such classes are found to be a threat to national security,.

          Think of it this way; if you read the INA the way that Amish is trying to, and the Russia declared war on us tomorrow, the President would not have the power to ban Russian nationals from coming to the country. There is no way the INA means that. Amish is being totally disingenuous here. And my respect for him has been greatly reduced as a result.

          1. “if…Russia declared war on us tomorrow” etc.

            “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies….”

            1. Yes he has that power, just like he has the power to ban entire classes of aliens.. Its almost like other sections the INA modify the section that you are pointing to. Gee, who could have seen that?

              1. What you said was this:

                “if you read the INA the way that Amish is trying to, and the Russia declared war on us tomorrow, the President would not have the power to ban Russian nationals from coming to the country.”

                Do you still stand by that claim?

                1. Yes I did say that. Because if you read that section as repealing every section that gave the President such powers that was written before it, and that is what you are trying to do with 1182F, then the section you point to is repealed as well.

                  1. “OK, Mr. Russian, your immigrant visa seems to be in order, you are hereby admitted to the United States.

                    “Oops, it looks like you’re an alien enemy, I arrest you under the Alien Enemies Act. Buy-bye.”

                    1. After all, the national-origin provision applies only to “the issuance of an immigrant visa.”

                    2. Oops, it looks like you’re an alien enemy, I arrest you under the Alien Enemies Act. Buy-bye.

                      No you can’t because the President can’t discriminate against aliens on the basis of nationality. Justin Amish told me so. And it was passed later so it rules.

                    3. No, it specifies immigrant visas:

                      “Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

                      An immigrant visa prevents you from being removed as an alien enemy? Is that what you’re saying? Because *that* would certainly gut the Alien Enemies Law.

                    4. “the President can’t discriminate against aliens on the basis of nationality. Justin Amish told me so”

                      Is this your mind-reading again? Because on his Facebook page he says, “It’s lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.”

                      https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/?fref=nf

                    5. Justin Amash

                      January 29 at 5:15pm ?

                      “Many supporters and opponents of President Trump’s executive order are conflating the terms “immigrant” (which encompasses green card holders), “nonimmigrant,” and “refugee.”

                      “It’s not lawful to ban immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

                      “It’s lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

                      “It’s lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

                      “Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

                    6. “President Trump’s executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it’s not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person’s “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

                      “President Obama’s action (which wasn’t disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.”

        2. It’s not a denial. It’s a 90 day delay while they establish better vetting.

          Obama did the same thing for Iraq in 2011.

          Judges stay their own orders in order to let the parties sort things out.

          This is a non issue.

          1. Its total nonsense. And I am surprised Eddie is falling for it. He is normally not this stupid.

            1. Oh, please, if you’re reduced to ad hominem it’s because *your* position is weak.

              1. You attributed to Amash the position that “the President can’t discriminate against aliens on the basis of nationality.” *That* is stupid. It is part for the course for your attempt to read the minds of what other people *really* think, as opposed to what they actually said.

                1. In John’s defense, it’s a lot easier to impute tangential nonsense onto your interlocutor and argue with your imaginary rendition of said interlocutor, rather than engaging the actual person’s point. I mean, why fight your enemy, when you can just fight an effigy of him instead?

          2. Obama did the same thing for Iraq in 2011.

            This is a lie. Obama exempted Iraq from the Visa Waiver program. Anyone in Iraq was still eligible to come to the US. They just had to apply through the standard Visa process.

      2. So John has decided he’s going to rely on the “nuh-uh, *you’re* stupid!” school of argument, plus his Criswell-like powers to read minds.

        And apparently he believes, among other things, that once an foreigner has an immigrant visa he can’t be removed from the country as an alien enemy.

        I am simply suggesting that in some points, the immigration law *as it is* is not the same as the law *as it ought to be.* And no Obamalike waving of a pen and a phone can change that.

    2. Amash was being a little duplicitous in smearing the ill-advised ban on valid green cards re-entering the country with the other things the EO.

      For example, when he points to the non-discrimination by country of origin requirements, that really only applies to people with valid green cards, not to people who don’t have them and want them. Dirty little secret of immigration law: we still have per-country limits in our immigration laws:

      http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit

      1. See Amash’s post quoted above.

  13. Can we stop with the point that zero americans have been killed? This should be considered as well as:

    I think it is more appropriate to also list would be attackers and if anyone got injured in an attack but didn’t die. I think those are applicable here.

    1. It’s the same odds as being struck by lightning while you’re winning the Lotto!

      1. Can we stop with banning known murderers from entering the country. You’re odds of being killed by one are the same as getting struck by lightning!

  14. Ok, I support admitting in Syrian refugees for a whole host of reasons, however can we please drop this utterly disingenuious line…

    “We’re already safer, despite the fact that since 1980, zero Americans have been killed in the United States by people admitted as refugees”

    Nobody fucking cares about their refugee status and past refugees are not in any way shape or form like the current batch that would be coming from Syria or elsewhere in the middle east. So the ones who came here and comitted violent acts came in through other immigration channels. BFD that does not mean that bad people will not use the current crapshow over there to sneak in on refugee visas.

    Further the danger need not come in the form of terrorism, perhaps you remember a story posted in this very blog about some muslim “refugees” livestreaming a gang rape of a girl in Europe? it is not a stretch in the least to sat that the views and opinions of the males from that region are in no way shape or form compatible with our western culture.

    Again, that does not mean I support banning them but can you please at least use honest arguments and not use the dishonest argument techniques our foes on both sides of the isle use so often?

    1. All they are doing when they do this, is ceding the field to Trump. You may not like Trump’s solution, but at least he admits there is a problem. Why can’t reason see that? They are not helping their cause by denying what is obvious to everyone.

      1. Just because there is a problem doesn’t mean the government should swoop in and try to solve it. That shouldn’t be controversial here. Inner city crime and starvation are problems. That doesn’t justify whatever the purported government solution is.

        And Trump admits nothing novel. No one doesn’t think terrorism is a problem. Plenty just don’t think it comes anywhere near the scope of warranting the EO.

        Here’s another perfectly valid response to ‘the problem of terrorsim:’ we do nothing. Is that not a solution most libertarians like when suggested ‘here’s some bad thing that sometimes happen; we need to *do something!*”?

        Like rape on campus and stranger danger and sex trafficking, one may posit that, being exceedingly rare, no special response is warranted, and any special response will almost certain to cause more harm than good. Perhaps you disagree. If so, you should prove it, instead of saying “remember that news story about that terrorist attack…”

        1. If no “special” response is warranted, then what response is warranted? We do lock up murderers and rapists with government action so I don’t particularly see how any action at all is equivalent to say title IX.

          I think the entire argument is a bit bizarre anyway when the entire refugee program is a welfare program to ship them in and then spend more public funds on schools and other programs. Somehow if we don’t hand them welfare it’s government coercion.

  15. So more people support it than actually voted for Trump. Huh.

    The first question that needs to be asked, is how bringing refugees (or other immigrants) from some notably backwards parts of the world into the country enhances the, what’s the phrase? ah, “general welfare” of Americans. Because that’s the purpose of our immigration laws. And you’re not going to get them loosened up until you can convince people that they will benefit from loosening them up.

    Its one thing to sell immigration of wealthy, successful, and/or highly qualified people. But refugees from the Seven Verboten Countries aren’t necessarily, or even likely, that.

    1. The other question I would ask is why it is our obligation to help clean up the mess in Syria by admitting its refugees? If we have some kind of obligation to help the world by admitting refugees, perhaps the Wilsonians have a point that that obligation includes intervening abroad for humanitarian reasons?

      1. This is exactly the consequence of that reasoning.

    2. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
      With silent lips. “Give me your successful, your wealthy,
      Your highly qualified people already breathing pretty freely,
      The well-connected and likeable of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the cream of your crop, flying first class to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      1. Certainly seems more sensible than the original version.

  16. What allies are alienated exactly? The countries it affects? They aren’t exactly allies.

    I am sure saudi arabia doesnt really mind. As their position is damn they are catching unto what we are doing

  17. I’m for a total ban on refugees unless they are sponsored by private institutions, groups or individuals. Deport any already here if they are now, or become, a public charge.

  18. “We’ll do the real people now. Are they here? Where are they?”

    Good grief. If this was parody it would have drawn blood.

    1. Seriously – if you haven’t watched the video, do yourself a huge favor and click the play button. It’s like an event horizon of self awareness.

      1. Two long serving members of Congress thinking on their feet as only members of Congress can.

        This is a million times worse than when Marco Rubio asked for water.

      2. You can’t fool me, that’s a clip from Veep.

      3. It’s like an event horizon of self awareness.

        Nice.

      4. I’d rather not. What happens? Does she forget the lyrics?

  19. Trump’s order is based on hysteria and panders to the worst sort of xenophobia at work in the dark night of the American psyche.

    That sounds like Bulwer-Lytton writing for Salon.

  20. I asked this before to Nick and I gather he ignores the comment section for his own good but I’ll try again.

    Who exactly in the Syrian Government is providing “verification” of the refugees?

    Or for that matter, when we “vet thoroughly” Iranian refugees are we using the Iranian Government to provide proof that these groups aren’t a threat to Americans?

    If not the Iranian Government then who do we use to verify the status of the refugees?

    This all begging the question of why we have this seven nation list right now, and it’s specifically because a couple “refugees” in Kentucky turned out to be “unsuccessful Islamic terrorists” that somehow escaped the mighty vetting process during the Obama administration.

    1. They can’t even verify if Bashir had a stroke or not.

    2. Who exactly in the Syrian Government is providing “verification” of the refugees?

      I don’t think that’s whats happening.

      most refugees are unable to prove much of their backstory. its part of the nature of being a refugee. your flight is “unplanned”, and you don’t have documentation for every detail of your life, and the government you’re fleeing is either hostile, a failed state, or both. Ultimately the screening is a combination of basic identity validation, some screening of interpol databases, some “mad-libs”/fill in the blanks guesswork based on what little can be verified, and the judgement calls of State dept contractors/officers based on ‘need’ and risk profile.

      there was a good article from a couple years ago about the myths of ‘screening’ which i had bookmarked which i’ll try and dig up. Basically, like with many things, its more an art than a science. (the context of the previous piece was re: our backlog of Iraqis which we’d actually already approved, but were being held in limbo for years due to inability of other agencies to verify details) Basically, what Trump is promising – “Extreme Vetting” etc? Is complete bullshit. They already do the best they can, and there’s simply limits to what can actually be done. The pretense that “if we only put in more effort, we can reduce all risk” is nonsense. The 80/20 rule applies = 80% of the obvious risk is screened out in minutes; the 20% rest can take years.

  21. I am all for refugees if:

    rich liberals
    celebrities
    politicians

    take them into their home and pay their way

  22. Donald Trump won the presidency on limiting immigration (among other things).

    There’s your poll.

    1. He lost the popular vote by like 2 million votes.

      1. True but he did it by flipping 6 states that went Obama not once but twice.

      2. And Shrill-bot got her just deserved Participation Trophy.

        1. Hey she finished a strong second!

          1. “Coffee is for closers.”

            I hope she is putting those steak knives to good use, placing them in the backs of the minions who FAILed her.-)

            1. I guess we know what Johnson got…

  23. Does Gillespie finally understand why politicians adhere to p ol icies that are relatively unpopular?

    1. I don’t understand this part though-

      Some are worried that vacancies could cause irreparable damage to national parks and forests. Others are exhausted from working overtime to compensate for their skeleton staffs

      He didn’t FIRE anyone, he just put in place a hiring freeze. What the fuck were they staffing with the last 8 years? Do we always need to add 8000 jobs to the National Park Service every year?

      I don’t get it.

      1. I just assumed their being overdramatic. The parks should be operated by private companies anyway.

        1. I agree and Donald is going to drop that bomb soon enough. I can only imagine it will be handled with the grace and aplomb we’ve come to expect from his administration, not to mention the media will surely explain the privatization model with rational fact based analysis and certainly not a “DEY GONNA BUILD CONDOS IN YELLOWSTONE!!!! RAGGGGEEE!!!” type of reporting.

          I really need to get in to the sign business.

          1. My idea: Trump should build housing in a national park so that all the refugees can live there together.

            1. Ask the states to identify how many and from what country they are willing to accept, and use that as the basis for resettlement.

              1. No limousine liberal homes. They have plenty of bedrooms and money to pay for food.

          2. He could just return them to the states, heh heh.

      2. President Ronald Reagan signaled his intention to carry through on his tax cut priorities in his first days in office. Less than an hour after he was sworn into office, Reagan issued a memo followed by an executive order to freeze the hiring of civilian federal workers.

        http://www.govloop.com/communi…..fer-power/

      3. He didn’t FIRE anyone, he just put in place a hiring freeze. What the fuck were they staffing with the last 8 years? Do we always need to add 8000 jobs to the National Park Service every year?

        It’s almost like national parks have a large seasonal workforce and that freezing hiring at “dead of winter” levels could create problems when tourist season and wildfire season rolls around.

        1. Bwahahahaha! Our plan is coming along nicely.

        2. So you’re saying that they don’t need to hire anyone right now so the hiring freeze is a good thing?

        3. This EO has been in place for a little over a week. I’m pretty sure that tourist season and wildfire season didn’t spring up last week.

      4. I’ve always understood trees to grow on their own, unless they’re trying to maintain a grove of Palm Trees at Glacier National Park, in which case I think I’ve pinpointed the problem.

    2. If federal employees are crying because they don’t have enough people, etc., it makes me think that somebody somewhere must be doing something right.

      When federal employees are picketing the White House en masse, that’ll be a real libertarian moment.

  24. “This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular. Trump’s order is based on hysteria and panders to the worst sort of xenophobia at work in the dark night of the American psyche.”

    This is one of those situations where you may be both wrong and unpopular. More importantly, the resettlement of refugees within our borders is one of those situations where democracy is entirely appropriate.

    1. Yea that was an annoying part of the piece. It was 7 countries for temporary 120 days (the green card seems to have been resolved, but not sure of the immigrant visa)

      The response to this has been rather hysterical for something that is meh.

  25. So what is the libertarian case for the refugee program? Can’t say, for all the pixels spilled, that a reason writer has ever made one.

    1. Can’t say, for all the pixels spilled, that a reason writer has ever made one.

      They haven’t. Other than highly generalized handwaving about immigration being always and everywhere a good thing. It Is Known.

      1. For a libertarian site/magazine they write a lot of words demanding the government point guns at people, steal their property, and spend it on things the left reason likes.

    2. Immigration is good, refugees are immigrants, therefore refugees are good. QED.

    3. Its funny how some government programs have to justify themselves, and other government programs have to have any reductions justified.

      You’d think libertarians would default to the first, not the second.

      1. Maybe they’re not libertarians at all.

    4. I think it’s not so much that there’s a libertarian case for accepting refugees so much as there’s no reason specific to libertarianism to categorically not take refugees in. I think the libertarian vs. statist vs. whatever argument doesn’t come into play until you get into details. For instance, I think we should take refugees in with the proviso that we expend the effort to find a secure, temporary refuge, and that should be separate from any discussions about immigration or anything else.

      I’ll say this: there isn’t a libertarian case to accept refugees if it’s against the wishes of the people who’d live near them. There isn’t a libertarian case to justify the government forcing people to accept the refugee program.

  26. Someone let me know how may people pointed out we have guns and the right to bear arms in our individual defense for a reason.

    And something nice for your trouble.

    1. I’ll post a “Not okay” response to your Youtube selection.

  27. Didn’t the US govt ban a Marxist in the 70s (?) from entering the US on a visa because of the beliefs in his head? If so, why is what happens between synapses relevant in one case and not the other?

  28. Conflating refugees with immigration, the visa program and executive orders is not helping add any clarity. EOs generally have been abused and I think far exceed both what the founders had in mind and what is appropriate within the principle of limited government; now let’s set that aside. Nations have the right to control immigration policy in any way they see fit along the lines established by their laws. That’s also a separate issue. Admitting refugees to the US doesn’t have to mean setting them all up in some section 8 housing in Houston. I think we could be spending some of this energy figuring out a way to temporarily and securely house refugees until their final status is determined, even if that status is being shipped back home when the shooting dies down. And finally, re-vetting visa holders can be done while they’re in the country without any change in risk.

    It’s a little depressing that so many people are against admitting refugees, but I’d like to think that part of the reason is that it’s been conflated with so many other issues that a reasonable, decent person might still find objectionable.

    1. It’s a little depressing that so many people are against admitting refugees, but I’d like to think that part of the reason is that it’s been conflated with so many other issues that a reasonable, decent person might still find objectionable.

      It’s as if people forget Hit ‘n Run‘s Great Ebola Freak-Out of 2014 ever happened.

      1. That’s a demonstrably communicable disease, HM. I have no problems at all whatsover, even if it was me and/or my family, totally quarantining someone with a disease process that is naive to a given area or population. Get treated at the point of infection, not bring the infection to the naive location.

        1. That is a sane reaction, and supported by more than a casual knowledge of epidemiology.

          The average reaction on here during those times were nowhere as sane.

          1. My wife and I were in the middle of Donbass Invasion, HM. You’ll forgive us for our physicianly absence, yes?

            Given my high opinion of your general posting, I’ll take your succinct description of the potential shitshow.

      2. Oh man, I almost passed out reading this and rolling my eyes… and I’m currently in Brazil, land of Zika… and appearsntly yellow fever now.

        1. I’m sorry.

          I didn’t mean to bring up such bad memories. The important part is that we made it through together.

          1. A true low point for H&R. On par with the droning of Awlaki thread.

    2. Ideally, companies in need of new workers or temporary workers would be able to recruit newly arrived refugees; give them enough to get a motel room for a short time, and by the end of that time, if they find a place to work, they get flown to the airport nearest the new place of employment, where they can work and live while awaiting verification, the local INS office or law enforcement is responsible for keeping track of where they are. If they lose their job, they have a time limit for finding a new one to stay in the country.

      Of course labor regulations likely make that impossible. In any case, that’s the bar I’d set. As long as they’re working and following the law, and keeping in touch while awaiting approval, then they’re fine.

  29. Nick, how many Europeans have been attacked or murdered by refugees in the past few years?

    1. This. Also, he keeps repeating the same bullshit lie over and over and over again about no refugee attacks in America, which is based on the most hyper-literal, pedantic, narrow definition of what a “refugee” is, as if reality there’s any meaningful distinction between a refugee and an asylum-seeker.

      1. Go finish your stupid book nobody will read it, Weigel.

    2. How many have been attacked or murdered by non-refugees? Why don’t you go find out, compare the numbers, and then maybe you’ll finally have a point.

  30. Ok, I have one question; WHAT allies in the Middle East? Other than Israel (which isn’t affected, or likely to take offense) the countries in that part of the world strike me as belonging to one of two groups. Group one consists of those that are openly hostile. The second group are the ones that lie to us.

  31. According to Reuters, the split runs tightly along partisan lines, with 51 percent of Republicans strongly agreeing with the executive order and 53 percent of Democrats strongly disagreeing.

    That’s what you call “tightly along partisan lines”? That’s practically definitionally nonpartisan!

    1. So only 53 percent of democrats strongly disagree? That’s not a good sign for team blue

      They should run on taking hundreds of thousands of refugees, carbon taxes, gun bans, tax increasese and tran bathrooms in 2020. Will work out well for them

      1. It did in 2016. I hope they double down.

  32. I like this analysis by Scott Adams

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..mmigration

    1. If Adams is right, then the Trump supporters defending every detail of his EO will soon have the rug pulled out from under them.

      1. Or in 120 days?

    2. This is smarter than any of the couple dozen posts written by our gracious hosts.

  33. This EO is the worst foreign policy decision since the Iraq war. “We came, we saw, he died.” Sound familiar, King?

    1. Not libya? All these other interventions? Iran deal? Berghdal?

      This EO is pretty meh to me. Though good think the green card thing got sorted out it appears and hope immigrant visa did as well

  34. In non-Trump news…

    file under: from now on, I want you all to call me Loretta

    Women’s studies professors divided over whether women’s studies is too vagina-centric

    Women’s studies professors are now divided over whether women’s studies is too vagina-centric.

    The controversy centers on a planned panel called “Pregnancy Without Women” slated for an upcoming National Women’s Studies Association conference.

    At issue is the fact that biological men (even ones who dress like women) cannot get pregnant, and some women’s studies professors are reportedly tired of pretending they can.

    One comment in particular angered trans scholars.

    “We don’t need supposedly progressive folks downplaying the importance of women’s reproductive functions at this time. Let us stop this game now. Only women get pregnant and it serves women not at all to pretend this is not true!”

    1. I agree. When studying a woman, one should also take into account her boobies, booty, and earlobes.

      1. Eeeeew, why do I never learn not to click your links?

        1. Hover is your friend.

          1. Wimp.

            1. OK that wasn’t so bad. I was expecting something more… freaky.

              But… Q-tips?!

              1. Well, it’s definitely lacking as a hygiene site. I was disappointed I didn’t see any car keys or ear curettages. Or even one of those nifty ear squirters that dislodge copious amounts of cerumen. I was underwhelmed.

      2. And what about their feet!!!!!!!

        1. Ew. The only part of the body that legit grosses me out some. Only because I love my wife more than life itself do I overcome the nausea that rubbing her feet instills (and she has cute little feet, too. Just the touching, blech!).

            1. FAILure, thy name is Titor!

              1. Well duh, you’ve got to do it in real life.

                Disclaimer: Dr. John Titor is not responsible for any Slavic women kicking you in the face.

          1. I remember having to rub my mom’s feet when I was a kid. Eeewww.

            1. I like feet just fine – not fetishing – but yeah I can see how that would turn one off for life.

      3. Even before I clicked that link I thought “either this is going to be ear stretching, or a Japanese ear fetish thing”

        BOOM, the Kanji.

      4. My tits are down here, perv.

    2. Look, we can all agree that you can’t have babies, which is no-one’s fault, not even Trump’s. But you have the *right* to have babies!

    3. “the vagina imagery at the women’s march was offensive to women without vaginas.”

      I can’t even mock that. It’s perfect as is.

      1. It’s like those Twilight movies. Satire is unnecessary, just sit back and frequently laugh your arse off.

        1. And the Twilight people laugh all the way to the bank.

      2. I can’t even mock that. It’s perfect as is.

        I agree with you here, straffinrun.

      3. “the vagina imagery at the women’s march was offensive to women without vaginas plus anyone with taste.”

        FTFY

        1. Seriously.

          You and i may feel differently about this (or not) – but i don’t think a Men’s Rights movement that waved around giant inflatable dicks, or wore “hats with dicks on them”, and had images of dicks on everything, would be considered engaged in any ‘mature and serious political debate’. But somehow its considered “cute” when women do it.

          1. Actually I completely agree. Just because I like dick doesn’t mean I want it waved in my face all the time. But I’m an old soul.

            1. They are trying to demystify pussy and stop the objectifying of it through sensory overload. Sorry, but the more straight men are reminded of pussy, the more they think of…pussy.

              1. The one thing that I find… interesting… is that they’re all marching around with pussies splayed open like a cooked clam. You would think that women trying to demystify and deobjectify the vulva would display it in normal everyday configurations, not splayed open like what happens only during sex and gyno visits.

                1. I don’t think it’s occurred to them what it generally looks like. It’s always looked like that in the therapy empowerment mirror, and naked yoga, and it’s just the image that springs to mind.

    4. Only women who have past puberty and not yet reached menopause can make babies. The baby-making demographic is narrower than just women. But carry on.

    5. I know this is supposed to be non-Trump news, but this is how you got Trump.

  35. Fine, so I’m in the minority. And if it were only 1% disapproving of this ban, that would simply make is 100:1 that I’m right and the rest are wrong.

    Life, liberty and property, it’s all or nothing. The balance has swung too far towards “life”, it’s time for liberty (and property) to take their place at the table again.

  36. The Onion claims another victim.

    Last night, Sean Spicer retweeted a video from satirical news publication the Onion. “You nailed it,” Spicer tweeted, along with the video which listed “Five Things to Know About Sean Spicer.” Except it seems like maybe Spicer ? who remember, as White House Press Secretary, is partially in the business of watching videos and reading tweets ? didn’t watch the video or read the Onion’s tweet as carefully as he could have ? since they declare Spicer’s “role in the Trump administration will be to provide the American public with robust and clearly articulated misinformation.”

  37. The Supreme Court announcement is minutes away…can you feel it?

    1. OMG, it’s Judge Wapner!

      1. Now *there’s* an unexpected development.

  38. This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular.

    you’re actually managing to be neither.

    It was pointed out yesterday that America has never been overly-fond of refugees. Its mostly news to you.

    Of course, ‘right and wrong’ isn’t a popularity contest; but the fact is even when America took in “more” refugees (more than 100,000 per annum) rather than “less” (around 50,000-70,000 – the long term average), its not like we’re doing anything of great moral significance in one case, but not in the other.

    Refugee policy in the US has always been tied to our political relationships; the The Act that created a refugee-resettlement program was born out of the Vietnam War – we lost, and we felt an obligation to help the people we’d failed. The next major wave we took in were people from ex-Soviet states after the fall. We’re not neutrally charitable = we’ve always been selective about whom we take large numbers of, and why. Pretending that Trump’s “cut” (which only reduced *targets* set by obama) is some major departure from legacy US policy is a delusion.

  39. Watching the video on Facebook with the little emjoi’s flying by. Show this to someone 20 years ago —- WTF?

  40. LOL “Unanimous! Can you believe that, does that happen anymore?”

    1. “even more radical than Scalia,” says Nan Aron. Yes, please!

      1. I read his wikipedia article, this Gorsuch guy. He really doesn’t seem radical at all.

  41. “the dark night of the American psyche”

    lol

    1. Seriously.

      Please spare us the melodrama. We get enough of it everywhere else.

  42. Correct…the title of your article finally makes sense…everyone is coming around

  43. I keep hearing/seeing the moobs tape where chuckie cries over a policy that he cheered and voted for a little over a year ago. I don’t remember anyone pissing themselves when Jimmy did it or when Bubba did it.

    I don’t care if supporting/not supporting puts one in the majority or minority. I don’t care what furriners think of it. I don’t care about the difficulties of people in other countries or their feelings.

    This is a temporary policy. Temporary.

    1. Schumer’s tears were disgusting indeed, but Albright’s saying the Statue of Liberty has tears in its eyes was worse. This is the pos that said the deaths of 500k was “worth the price” of sanctions on Iraq. Bitch don’t love Muslims.

    2. This is a temporary policy. Temporary.

      But the political capital that stands to be gained is substantial.

      Chuckie’s already lost and preaching to the choir in an empty building. He just don’t know it yet.

  44. “We’re already safer, despite the fact that since 1980, zero Americans have been killed in the United States by people admitted as refugees! ”

    That’s simply not true. Read that link again. Since 1980, zero Americans have been killed by TERRORISTS in the United States who were admitted as refugees. Plenty of refugees have killed people since 1980.

  45. You know, I definitively consider myself a libertarian, but I wince painfully with all the indignation coming out of Reason and other libertarians over our lack of an open border and as that border becomes less open.

    Viddy this and viddy this well – a fucking country cannot function without fucking secure borders, especially when everyone and their fucking brother outside the US either hates us, is jealous of us, wants to be one of us with no due diligence on their character or intent, or wants to fuck with us.

    Continually harping on “open borders” and support of such does nothing to help the libertarian cause. Holy crap, we’re just now turning the corner on our support of legalizing drugs, and what, the party needs to find another issue that puts us back in the fucking wilderness?

    Get the fuck off of “open borders”, and try putting some effort into the reason most of us became libertarians: less government in a CITIZEN’S fucking lives.

    Fuck!

    1. I agree. I think Reason and the LP and the rest should shift to a “libertarian nationalist” position. “Libertarianism in one country,” to remake the old Communist slogan. Harness the nationalist surge around the country and the world and turn it toward a libertarian direction. Give up on open borders, compromise on free trade, but I think nearly everything else could be sold to Trump voters.

      1. A libertarian country I might believe is possible, maybe. A libertarian world will never be. Can we please give up on this ‘globalist’ shit for now? It will ruin us.

      2. I’m pretty sure you’re correct, if only they wouldn’t insist upon dying on the open borders hill.

      3. “libertarian nationalist”
        Haha. Alright, you’ve jumped the shark.

        1. Think of it as a national version of the Free State Project.

    2. This global no-borders thing removes all value from the concept of Citizenship.

    3. Making immigration simpler and not barring refugees does not equate to open borders.

      It also happens that the economic arguments against immigration are fundamentally the same bullshit arguments against international trade, and the ‘security argument’ against it is largely made up of the same statistically unwarranted hysteria that motivates so many other government strictures.

  46. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  47. It’s “security theater” to be sure as terrorism isn’t really a very big deal. I don’t personally worry about it in the slightest and think people that do are idiots. The only major concern is how much cash we’re wasting in the Middle East in a failing war to stop it.

    That said it’s moronic to not have strict rules/procedures in place to clear people from especially sketchy countries. The statement “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” comes to mind. Obviously that’s a bit of a stretch, but in the present world as it really exists it is nearly a factual statement.

    I think we need to look over anybody moving in from sketchy countries with a fine tooth comb, and if we can’t verify with very high certainty that they’re not a crazy or a sketchy then fuck them. Nobody is owed the “right” to move to America. Will we weed out some good people because we can’t get enough info to clear them? Certainly. Will we weed out some bad people? Certainly. 98% of the people we disallow will probably be good people, but so what? Once again we don’t OWE anybody anything. If we can’t be 99.9% sure you’re not sketchy and you’re from a war torn hell hole where a good percentage of the population hates the west, then sorry dude you gotta stay in your country and grow some balls and help fix it.

    1. From Japan? From India? From Poland? Come on in, provided it’s legally and you ostensibly have a decent trade or skillset. But in the real world ignoring things like Muslim countries are the main driver of global shit storminess is retarded.

      I’m mostly German. My grandma got shit for being German growing up in the 1930s in Pittsburgh, especially since her last name was the same as the Kaiser’s… During WWII proper she got still more shit. As a (mostly) German American do I think it’s reasonable that a German immigrant may have received extra scrutiny in 1940 if they tried to move here? YES. I think it’s totally reasonable. It is common sense, and anybody who doesn’t see that is just trying to sit on their smug moral high horse and show everybody how much more caring and decent they are, while ignoring reality. Most wars in history were either about resources directly, ethnic tensions, or religion. To ignore that is insane.

      Would it suck to be denied if you were in fact not a Nazi sympathizer moving here to spy for the fuehrer? Sure. But did America in 1940 OWE ANY German the right to move here? No. Same here.

      Trump needs to create a strong vetting process and open things back up for people from these places FAST. If he doesn’t it will all appear more of a sham. If he does that then I don’t think it’s THAT horrible of an action.

    2. The only thing that is 110% wrong in my mind is that he applied this to green card holders etc. Anyone with rights as an American citizen/citizen to be has special rights and privileges that must be respected. Also he should have allowed people in transit in, and only stopped anybody new from coming. The optics would have been better and more fair while still ostensibly achieving the actual goals, if he even actually cares about the goal of weeding out sketchy folks that is…

  48. Taking in refugees from these places is not particularly popular anywhere. ISIS is literally a remnant of some violent, roaming conquerors from the old world, who they would ransack villages, slaughter a hundred civilians, rape their women, and desecrate corpses or use them as props to spread fear. When a radical Islamist runs over 86 people in France, ti won’t be just taken as distant “world news” to people in Japan.

    How many people would welcome and accept what most Islamic societies represent? Women can’t drive there. They might lose their heads if they go out without headdress. Different sects still kill each other over OLD grudges. If you believe in the polls, then you almost have to assume that a chunk of these immigrants and “refugees” (who might call themselves moderates) actually endorse radical ideologies that drive the very violence they’re fleeing from. It’s a Pandora’s box.

    If you run away from North Korea and you get caught, you’re DEAD. Or you’re sold into virtual slavery in China. That’s why there aren’t that many refugees from that region. Some of the Muslim refugees have already returned home when the food wasn’t to their liking or got bribes to leave the host nation. Only the truly ignorant will believe that ALL of these current refugees are like the Jews fleeing the holocaust.

    1. Come on now, most of them are moderate Muslims! The thing is one has to realize what a “moderate Muslim” really is, and that’s what the left wants to pretend is not how it is.

      A moderate Muslim is somewhat more “barbaric” than the most hardcore of Evangelical Christian, but they can’t accept that. They don’t want to blow anybody up, or necessarily kill anyone, or conquer the west for Allah. No, that’s the extremists. They just think gays are the worst people ever, maybe they should be executed or imprisoned, or more likely just hardcore ostracized and looked down on, they’re moderates after all. Women DEFINITELY better STFU and do exactly what they’re told or else they’ll get a good beating. And so on. On the plus side they’re in favor of strong family values!

      I don’t get the disconnect in the left with that stuff above. It’s pretty hardcore cognitive dissonance even for the left. Personally I don’t really care too much about people having “wrong think” personal views, provided they don’t try to turn them into law or push it on others in society too hard. But they’re foolish to think saaay some millions of extra people of those views in the USA aren’t going to have any impact on gays/abortion etc.

      1. And to quote The Donald “And some I assume are good people.” LOL

        Obviously there ARE plenty of good Muslims. I’d say most of them are probably awesome people (hardworking, good family life, etc) aside from a few social views like gay rights etc. Most of the Muslims I know are pretty great on all fronts if you discount the social views, which I don’t really care much about anyway. Personal views are personal for me. But if you’re a lefty that defines yourself by being super proggie/SJW that SHOULD be a huge problem.

        There really probably are a fair number that could be considered moderates in a more modern western sense too. Like the equivalent level of religious zeal as your average American protestant or whatever. There must be many millions. But I feel like as a society their average level of religious zeal is closer to Puritan levels or Westboro Baptist Church than it is to modern western Christians. I don’t have much of a problem with that, but again the lefties SHOULD if they’re going to freak out over abortion, womens rights, etc to the degree that they do.

  49. This is one of those moments when I’d rather be right than popular.

    And so far you’re zero for two.

    1. ROFLMAO.

  50. “New polls shows 49 percent support, versus just 41 percent against…”

    Like polling for support for Trump, I suspect those numbers may be biased against Trump’s executive order, too.

    People who suspect it’s socially unacceptable to support Trump and oppose asylum seekers may make up a significant portion of the lonely people who answer the phone to talk to unknown callers and take the time to answer surveys.

    And they may be the kind of people who tell surveyors what they think the surveyors want to hear.

    Support for Trump on this is probably above 49%.

    1. Certainly higher for specific sub portions of it. I bet if you asked “Should we have extra thorough vetting of refugees from XXX countries before letting them in?” It would be like 60-70% yes.

      Same thing for “Should we deport illegal immigrants with criminal records?” Probably 80-90% yes. But if you ask “Should we ban all Muslims from the middle east from entering the country?” or “Should we ban green card holders from coming back into the country?” You’re going to get a lot fewer yes answers. When it supports their narrative they ask it the way that gets them the result they want.

      How questions are asked and what the demographics are are everything in polling. With the election they were obviously under sampling Republicans in most polls and then not even doing the adjustments to try to rectify the under sampling. Guarantee they’ll be pulling the same shit with Trump until he’s out of office.

      Thing is they must be doing their own private polling too so they know what’s what for themselves. Supposedly Trump was commissioning a LOT of private polling during his campaign, that was showing far better results, which is why he had a pretty high degree of confidence the whole time. I’m sure he thought he might lose, but he knew it wouldn’t be a blowout like the MSM was saying.

  51. Nick is not the one that’s going to inspire me with excitement to get out and demand the importation of Saracen suicide-berserkers, sorry. I’m gonna have to grant that the Republicans are right about keeping electricity safe and legal, and keeping the human splatter-sacrificers (like those afflicted with any other dangerous form of insanity) Over There.

  52. Especially here on reason.com.

    Where the faux libertarian Republicans probably like it by greater margins

    1. Yes of course they do and we love to comment on the faux libertarians Democrat articles that were siding for Hillary and freak every time President Trump takes a piss. There will soon be an article on how he didn’t shake it three times before he put it back in his pants. Mass panic and unrest takes hold they all wet their pants at any action taken and it’s only been a few days.

  53. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  54. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  55. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  56. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.