Justin Amash

Justin Amash Destroys Steve King's Xenophobic Tweet About Immigrant Babies Destroying America

"I'm an American no less than you are."

|

Steve King
Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has drawn criticism for suggesting in a Tweet that Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders is right about immigration: specifically, that native-born white people need to start having more babies in order to offset the influx of immigrants.

"Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny," King tweeted on Sunday. "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."

His tweet contained a link to a cartoon of Wilder protecting Western civilization from the threats of Islamic extremism.

King defended his tweet in subsequent interviews. "I meant exactly what I said, as is always the case," King told CNN's Chris Cuomo. "You cannot rebuild your civilization with someone else's babies… we need to get our birthrates up or Europe will be entirely transformed within half a century."

King went on to blame the collapse of Western society on illegal immigrants who "live in enclaves, refusing to assimilate."

One fellow Republican who did not take kindly to King's assertion that immigrants are somehow un-American or anti-European: libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. He tweeted:

As Amash notes, our civilization does not belong to people of a certain ethnicity or racial heritage—it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.

This is a theme covered frequently in the pages of Reason and at Reason.com. Nick Gillespie recently described America as "a place where anyone from anywhere can come and express their potential through radical economic, cultural, and political freedom." It is "what's exceptional about this country."

Do some immigrants hold views that are anathema to the Western project? Of course. But so do some native-born citizens. At this moment, perhaps no one is working harder to weaken two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West—restrained government and free trade—than U.S. President Donald Trump, a non-immigrant. Preserving Western society does not mean kicking out immigrant babies, or engaging in some kind of race to birth more white kids. It's the ideas that matter, not the skin colors of the people who hold them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sean Spicer Says You Can Trust President If He's Not 'Joking,' New Protests in Ferguson, Northeast Getting Snow: P.M. Links

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. IT BEINGS the baby Wars!!!

    1. The Baby Wars: Trump versus the media/sjws.

      1. Baby War was my nickname in college.

        1. Mine was Bogart

  2. Nick Gillespie recently described America as “a place where anyone from anywhere can come and express their potential through radical economic, cultural, and political freedom.”

    EVERYONE BUT STEVE KING, I GUESS.

    Boom. Nailed it.

    1. I mean the guy’s an idiot but the outrage is a bit unwarranted. He even said he hopes one day intermarriage will lead to everybody being the same color. That is one of liberals’ biggest talking points.

      1. Sooner or later it probably will. No big deal.

        1. And of course, it’s the duty of government to make that happen as fast as possible.

      2. I will miss the variety of the beauty in the world. Every race and ethnicity has some damn attractive traits…if we all muddle in one color that will suck :/

        1. I wouldn’t worry. One of my very red headed cousins married a guy of Chinese ancestry. Their son has bright red hair. What that probably means is that many many years from now most of us will have recessive genes so that random dark skinned parents will have a blond kid.

          1. This sort of thing happens all the time in the Caribbean. no biggie.

    2. radical economic, cultural, and political freedom

      As long as you’re licensed and haven’t violated any FDA or EPA guidelines, you’re a shoo-in as soon as you can fill out the requisite paperwork and pay your fair share.

    3. BOOM? Because Steve King was not allowed to express his ideas? Or BOOM, because others used their freedom to tell Steve King to shove it?

      BOOM! That was a loud fart.

  3. two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West

    Triggering…

  4. Oh man that one tweet totally DESTROYED that other tweet.

    1. Never before have so few contentless words been destroyed so much by so few contentless words.

  5. “it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to post-Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.”

    Betting that correlates strongest with people of certain ethnicity and heritage.

    1. Noticing ethnic differences is sooooo racist!
      If your eye offends you, pluck it out!

  6. So does he mean white peolpe should only breed with other whites or as long as one parent is white?

    1. No. In fact he said the exact opposite on CNN.

  7. “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

    I didn’t know King was a Glibertarian.

    1. You have a little boner for that site don’t you? Did they not let you in?

      1. ‘little’ seems to be the operative word

      2. I wonder, do we know any mentally ill obsessive trolls that constantly whine about certain libertarian websites…

  8. Destroyed? Eh, more like a slight rogering.

  9. “norms of the civilized West?restrained government and free trade”

    You guys keep pimping this idea, but if the West (and by extension liberalism) is just free trade and open immigration than that’s a pretty emptying philosophy you got there. Sorry, but the West (and liberalism) are only worth defending if its basis is individual rights.

    1. Yeah, regardless of whether or not I favor free trade and open immigration, they hardly have enough pervasive historical weight as to qualify them as “fundamental norms of the civilized West”. Tarriffs are expressly provided for in the Constitution, after all. They’ve been a frequent focus of controversy throughout American history, but not so much in principle (in contrast with slavery, for example) as in the specifics of who’s being favored and who penalized.

      And I very much agree on the individual rights emphasis. That’s the cause most fundamentally in need of defending in the 21st century.

      1. And I’m not trying to defend King. I’m just saying that Reason seems to be pimping a bastardized version of the Enlightenment. One that ignores individual rights in favor of trade

        1. Truthfully, how much knowledge of the history of the West does the staff at reason actually posses? They pimp that version because they don’t know any better.

          1. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to know any better

        2. The right to trade with others is a major aspect of individual rights, is it not?

    2. Reason aren’t the ones who need to brush up on their philosophical bonafides. To anyone with even passing familiarity to Austrian economics, it’s an unstated premise that most human behavior can be considered economic behavior (or, that the distinction is essentially meaningless). Individual rights imply free trade, and “free trade” is shorthand for a system which maximizes individual economic liberty. But since economic liberty is the same as regular liberty, “free trade” necessarily implies enhanced individual liberty.

      You might disagree with some of these premises, but the irony of this criticism is that it demonstrates your own ignorance, rather than theirs.

  10. Unconvinced.

  11. Andrew Breitbart used to say, “politics is downstream from culture”. The problem is people don’t leave their cultural and political norms when they migrate. Even when it’s the political norms, or more specifically, the economic implications of those political norms, that causes them to migrate in the first place. You see this in internal migration within the country as Colorado and Nevada turn purple then blue. This is also why so many immigrants, Asian, Latino, and other, tend to be so leftist in political outlook, generally downplaying liberty. (This is true even when some of them call themselves libertarians.)

    Being glib about this isn’t going to make the problem go away. Or keep the country from going down the slow march to democratic socialism, at least until it bankrupts us all. Though, not before curtailing many of our cherished freedoms, economic and otherwise. Now if the open borders folks didn’t have their heads in the sand about this, they might get more of us to along with the program.

    1. Amish and Soave are cultural leftists. They actually believe every culture is equal and there is nothing superior or preferable about western culture. So, your point goes right over their heads.

      1. Think it’s that most any culture can inculcate western values. King’s statement sounds more like racialist surrender when the true, moral solution is to keep arguing in favor of western values and celebrate individuals and institutions that do so. Just because many non whites are marxists doesn’t mean you will win the war with more white (Marxist) babies

        1. Of course, we can. And King said that. The people who are being racist here are people like Soave. They are the ones who assume any affirmation of Western culture necessarily excludes non Whites, not King. Soave shares the exact same assumption that western culture is uniquely white that the White Nationalists he claims to hate. King’s statement is only racist if you buy into the racist idea that western culture must be white.

          1. Upon re-reading I think the headline is closer than the article: if it’s any wrongthink it’s xenophobic to suggest immigrants (other people’s babies) cannot adopt western values. The fact that a white guy is endorsing another white guy is where the race hucksters got the scent.

            All that aside I find it fascinating how white people urging white people to have more babies to continue their unique culture is considered controversial in 2017 – an era where hoop earrings are sacrosanct to cultural celebration of Hispanic people (or something, it didn’t make much sense). I often wish another (non western) culture had concurrently invented western enlightenment type values so the cool kids could get on board

      2. That is not correct John. Most of my relatives are old order Amish who reside in northern Indiana, and I promise you that they are far from being leftists! They have quite a few libertarian views in fact, but of course their religion always comes first. They distrust government. They work very hard at their place of employment. They are not enrolled in Social Security nor are any of them on public welfare. They handle disputes internally instead of relying on the state. They avoid calling cops and using our ‘just us’ legal system to the fullest extent possible.
        They have church groups which vary a bit in beliefs from church to church. Some churches ban telephones at home but allow them at Amish owned businesses. Some churches say that phones are allowed, but must be outside of the residence. There are many other things that can vary from church to church, but they are actually almost anarchistic in that they allow their people to migrate to other churches and Amish communities with differing beliefs, including switching to become Mennonites. All churches help members who are having financial difficulties.

        1. To John and others: Further reading of these comments and the rereading of this article leads me to believe that you were referring to Justin Amash’s views, and that you misspelled his name Amish.

    2. Re: Shahid,

      The problem is people don’t leave their cultural and political norms when they migrate.

      Do you think they can’t change?

      I am asking you seriously. These are human beings. Are you saying there’s NO WAY they can receive an infusion of what you should consider a better culture, or freedom, and change?

      If there’s ONE characteristic that seems to define Trumpistas is this conceit they all share, fancying themselves the superior beings. You are not.

      1. So, YOU can make blanket judgements but it is wrong when others do that?

        1. This. Dude is becoming unstable i think.

          1. He’s been unstable for a long time. It’s just not manifestly evident when he’s spouting libertarian platitudes unchallenged.

            1. Old Mexican is a pillar of the commentariat. But Trumpalos gonna trumpalo.

      2. OldMexican Blankety Blank:

        Do you think they can’t change?

        People change all the time when their old way of doing things no longer works. Not just once, but on an ongoing basis that can’t just be chalked up to bad luck.

        So, what would be the impetus that would make them change their worldview? What impetus would be big enough and continuous enough to cause them to change it?

        Considering how many immigrants seem to vote reflexively for big generous government and nanny state, how would you answer this challenge? I’m all ears… err, eyes.

        If there’s ONE characteristic that seems to define Trumpistas is this conceit that they all share, fancying themselves the superior beings. You are not.

        That’s a lot of assumptions you have there, and indeed quite Trump-like in the lack of nuance. Why lump everyone who doesn’t think the same way you do on this into one big bucket of superior-feeling Trumpistas? I might guess one would do this to feel superior to these yokels, but that seems like a silly way to approach any discourse of value.

    3. When you import people you import their culture and politics with them

    4. No, it’s simply that the perspective “politics is downstream of culture” is inherently projecting. Sure, for people like Breitbart, infantile tribalism is all they know, and so it dictates their politics absolutely.

      But movements like the Enlightenment are fundamentally intellectual in nature. Indeed, at one time it had essentially zero traditional support, except that which could be derived from reason.

      It’s entirely possible to come to political conclusions, though reason, which are not a direct manifestation of tribal interests. Indeed, educated or intelligent individuals do this every day, all over the world. The enlightenment has always spoken to those individuals, has always been for those individuals. In this regard, folks like Breitbart are essentially coattail-riding useful idiots: they benefit from Western success without contributing to it, and they advocate for Western interests without understanding exactly what those even are, or how they have led to that success.

    5. Shahid, the open borders folks don’t have their heads in the sand – the outcomes of open borders, as well as importing large groups of poor Muslims, are exactly what they are hoping for: More cultural clashes, dilution of the majority white heritage and voting power, social discord, and an increasingly larger block of left-leaning democratic voters who are dependent of government largesse for subsistence. It’s all in keeping with their Alinsky-inspired plan.

  12. I offered to put a white baby into Omarosa, but the reverend said her baptist religion only lets her fornicate with celebrities and other preachers, and I’m an agnostic, soo……

    1. I bet her religion has nothing to say about jelly babies.

  13. “At this moment, perhaps no one is working harder to weaken two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West?restrained government and free trade?than U.S. President Donald Trump”

    Oh I wouldn’t say that.

    The liberal Democrats have been working very hard at weakening both of them ever since FDR’s “New Deal” and they haven’t let up any as far as I can see.

  14. No he didn’t. Amish is an example of what King is talking about needs to happen. What King said was you can’t have people who live in their own cultural enclaves and refuse to intermarry or embrace American culture and values. Amish is an example of the exact opposite of that. He didn’t grow up in an enclave and did embrace American values. Amish has no point here. He is an example of the type of immigrant King is saying we need. So Amish saying “hey I embraced American values” does nothing except prove King’s point that having immigrants who don’t is a really bad idea.

    1. That and Amash, in all respects, is a welcome though improbable deviation from the norm. Isn’t that the guy’s whole appeal?

      1. If every Muslim who immigrated turned into Amish, this wouldn’t be an issue. But of course they don’t and it is an issue. But anyone who notices that is just a big racist.

        1. Amash’s immigrant parents were white Christians from the Levant. Fucking western Civ was born in the Near East.

    2. No, King was talking about having babies. As in a baby gap. As in white folk need to go a humping. Because immigrants having babies is a bad thing.

      He said, and I quote for your benefit: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

      My dad was someone’s else’s baby, so sit and spin on this.

      1. Yes, you cannot import kids, whose parents taught them cultural norms that aren’t necessarily in tune with ours, and bring them into a country that no longer tries to instill cultural norms and expect the culture to not be ravaged.

  15. I must have seen two dozen different Steven King headlines in the last couple weeks, but every time I STILL click through thinking it’s about the author for some reason.

    On that note: Dark Tower movie coming out this summer, here’s to hoping they don’t fuck it up! Also Roland is black now, I guess (NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT).

    1. Roland is being played by Idris Elba? As an actor he does badass scary well. Sounds like a good pick.

      1. Excellent pick. I was hoping he might be the next Bond, but he doesn’t seem to be interested.

  16. Glenn Reynolds on Trump throwing Preet feet first into the wood chipper:

    “There’s been a lot of faux outrage about this decision of Trump’s, but it’s all bogus. And Bharara’s refusal to resign was childish, an effort to score anti-Trump points with Democrats that, all by itself, demonstrated why Bharara was unfit for office and why Trump was right to let him go.”

    http://tinyurl.com/jgm9ntp

    1. That’s my God Emperor!

      Vote Woodchipper!

  17. “If you could go anywhere in the world and adopt these little babies and put them into households that were already assimilated into America, those babies will grow up as American as any other baby with as much patriotism and as much love of country as any other baby. It’s not about race, it’s never been about race ? It’s a clash of cultures, not a race.”

    That is what King said. How is that not true?

    1. Because libertarianism means seeing all people everywhere as interchangeable cogs in a machine obviously.

    2. Re: John,

      That is what King said. How is that not true?

      King’s assumption being that the “American culture” is as monolithic as they come, as SUPERIOR as they come, and that people from other backgrounds would be so invariably insular and backwards that their children would be better off being adopted by Americans. That was the justification behind Protestant-based HEDUKASHION which the Canadians forced thousands of Native children into, John. The implication is THAT creepy and detestable.

      I consider Trumpista culture severely backward and retrograde, John. How about that?

      1. The American culture is empirically better. As evidenced by the fact people get angry when we don’t let them come here.

        1. Re: Bubba Jones,

          The American culture is empirically better.

          Would that be because of the genetic purity of Americans, BJ, like Kjng seems to suggest?

          As evidenced by the fact people get angry when we don’t let them come here.

          What’s with this “we” business, Kemosabe? The government may not let some in, or most in, but that is because politicians and bureaucrats are enamoured with Economic Central Planning. You, on the other hand, are nothing.

      2. He’s right.

        The places that immigrants hail from, by and large, are utter shitholes. Why the fuck would we want the idiots who fucked up THEIR home to also fuck up ours?

        1. I bet you’ve never even been out of the country.

          1. You can bet as you wish. Mexico is one I can describe as an unmitigated shithole with few issues.

            Why do Progs want to leave for Canada and never for Mexico?

          2. I have. People in 3rd world or poorer countries grow up with a mindset completely different than most Americans. Some of them could integrate because they love what America stands for (economic and social freedom), but the majority just admire our wealth and think we are wrong about everything else.

            I realize this goes against the narrative of MUH OPEN BORDERS but reality doesn’t need to conform to a narrative, it just is what it is. And if we ignore it we end up with a situation like the Europeans have today.

  18. It’s a dirty trick, conflating race and culture to make somebody look racist when they make a comment about culture.

    1. Its a racist trick. Soave apparently thinks that there is something about Western Culture that makes non whites unable to partake in it. Robby is pretty much a white nationalist. Who knew?

      1. Robby’s consistently among the most racist of reason contributors.

      2. He refused to get the Nazi haircut, that’s how he’s been hiding it.

  19. As Amash notes, our civilization does not belong to people of a certain ethnicity or racial heritage?it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.

    Certainly. So what happens when you get a mass immigration of people who do not believe in those things?

    1. You hide under the bed and wet your pants because your philosophy is so fucking weak a few million immigrants can come in and wipe out the underpinnings of your civilization. I mean, there’s absolutely no chance those immigrants could show up here and have the prosperity and relative peacefulness of a multi-ethnic US persuade them that embracing American culture with its individualism and meritocracy might be preferable to sticking with the tired old fucked-up shit they’re fleeing from. We must slay these heathen barbarians, drink their blood and feast on their corpses as the Old Ones have commanded us since time immemorial. As it was and as it always shall be, as we did unto the heathen Chinee, the swarthy dago, the papist Mick, the dumb Polack, the dirty Jews – all of them threatened our fragile edifice of lies about freedom of thought and freedom of word and freedom of deed and so we slew them rather than risk exposure.

      1. You are pretty sad.

        A serious question answered with absolutely no thought given to it.

      2. Roman civilization was pretty solid. Didn’t take a few million to wipe it out.

    2. Re: Fatty Bolger,

      So what happens when you get a mass immigration of people who do not believe in those things?

      The same thing that you get when you have a mass of Trumpistas voting.

      See how that works? There are plenty of therapies for your paranoia, FB.

      1. “Trumpistas” believe in those things as much as anybody.

        Anyway, my question said nothing specifically about American immigration.

      2. “Trumpistas” believe in those things as much as anybody.

        Anyway, my question said nothing specifically about American immigration.

  20. “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

    Why? Do they contain less protein?

    1. Less calcium because they don’t drink their milk. Makes for lousy foundations.

  21. The “civilized west” is characterized by its love for free trade and restrained government? Wow.

    Some cultures are clearly better than other in so far as creating a stable, prosperous society. That’s why all the celebrities were threatening to move to Canada or Europe, not Mexico or China. There’s no comparison between bad American president who cannot act like tyrant in a constitutional state and the likes of Venezuela.

    As for King’s statement, I don’t know what he was going for there.

    1. Re: XM,

      Some cultures are clearly better than other in so far as creating a stable, prosperous society.

      What makes a prosperous society is merely the respect for property rights, which many cultures possess in various degrees. What threatens property rights is actually government and politicians, not the culture.

      1. “culture” is what creates governments.

        You have it backwards.

        The Iraqi’s created the gov’t their “culture” wanted.

        Neither their culture, nor the gov’t they created, was about respecting property rights, or any other “rights” as we commonly know them.

        Unlike in 1787 when we in the US at least tried to make one that did.

        1. Well, I blame the brits for the Iraqi government.

          1. As I recall the Brits had no particular say in the gov’t the Iraqi’s created after the fall of Saddam.

            But lets blame all the ME problems on the Brits since they colonized most of it.

            They’ve been gone for a long time now.

            Which cultures are advancing, which aren’t?

            Are any choosing to advance?

            Any, any?, of the Muslim countries advancing?

            They are all free to choose now. What are they choosing?

            And why?

            1. Re: AZ Gunowner,

              As I recall the Brits had no particular say in the gov’t the Iraqi’s created after the fall of Saddam

              You see how shifty are Trumpistas? Way to change the goalposts, AZ.

              The current government is the direct result of American nation-building. The previous government was the result of British interventionism. Before that. Iraq actually did not exist – it was called Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization.

              1. Go f yourself.

                You are just an obnoxious troll.

        2. Re: AZ Gunowner,

          “culture” is what creates governments.

          That’s a LIE. Most governments are the result of conquerors imposing their will on the local population.

          You have it backwards.

          It ain’t me who is backwards.

          The Iraqi’s created the gov’t their “culture” wanted.

          You mean the government the BRITISH wanted.

          Do you know anything about the history of Iraq?

          1. I know you are an obnoxious troll.

            But that admittedly doesn’t take much intelligence to figure out.

          2. No. Most governments are the expressed will of the conquering people.

            The conquered get exterminated.

            The result is an expression of the local people.

            Unless the brits get involved and install a minority government that relies on British guns.

            See also Rwanda.

      2. There’s also accumulation of capital. That’s the main reason why this society is prosperous and wealthy now.(because we used to respect property rights to a greater degree) To your point though, aren’t the government and the politicians who run it a product of the culture? Do you think a society of rugged individualists would put up with the government we’ve had pretty much my entire life?

        1. Re: Dark Lord of the cis,

          To your point though, aren’t the government and the politicians who run it a product of the culture?

          Not really. There could be more propensity from some people to accept a bully as a leader but tell me how was it that a people with a culture so rich with knowledge like the German people was so easily swayed by a second-rate ex-Corporal? What I am saying is that there’s culture and then there’s irrationality, which knows no bounds.

        2. There is also the fact that we had tremendous natural resources and a finite industrial population. We didn’t have centuries of aristocracy fcking things up.

      3. Why do you think entitlements are so hard to cut? It isnt due to politicians

      4. Except the culture is a big part of it.

        Why are the countries that were colonized by the Spanish, overall, such shitty places to be? Corruption seems pandemic in ALL of them and they spend more time beating themselves in the heads with bats to fix problems.

        Why are former British colonies more stable, overall?

        It’s the culture. Plain and simple.

        1. Because Spain raped and pillaged their colonies for generations and did not take ownership of the long term success of their colonies.

          America and Canada, on the other hand displaced the natives with British landowners who built a society for their own long term best interest.

          1. Culture. It is a bitch, ain’t it? Spain instilled a “I’m gonna get mine and fuck you” culture.

  22. it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.

    At this moment, perhaps no one is working harder to weaken two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West?restrained government and free trade

    Given Soave’s repeated and frightful ignorance of history, it doesn’t surprise me that his perception on the Enlightenment is buzzwords followed by rhetoric that shows he fundamentally doesn’t understand the ‘norms of the civilized West’. Is Robby in favour of historical British free trade, you know, the kind they enforced by gunpoint and actively started wars over?

  23. Meanwhile, events in the Netherlands and Germany prove him right, where tens of thousands of Turks born in those countries are rioting because they hate their country and love Turkey

  24. My wife and I decided we would try to make the Europe trip that she’s always wanted to do next year.

    See Paris and Normandy via a Viking River Cruise.

    I told her we might as well (it is not particularly high on my list of things to do, this is for her) because as it is Paris looks more like Beirut than Beirut looks like Paris now. And it is only going to look further that way in the future.

    But I’m sure that is only because the French have decided that burkinis on the beach is better than Bardot on the beach.

    I’m sure it has NOTHING to do with the immigrant babies.

  25. 110% spot on

  26. I consider a fair reading of King’s comments to be that he’s not very enlightened, but thinks because he dressed up what he said with a few lines about patriotism that people just misunderstood him.

    Call it the equivalent of people who say they’re “for free speech, but….”.

  27. We want immigrants who want to be Americans. Not immigrants who want to rebuild their home cultures in a new location.

  28. “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny,” King tweeted on Sunday. “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

    Actually, neither of the two things can affect such an outcome, however Kind chooses to define “destiny”. “Our” destiny cannot be defined by the future reproductive decisions of free individuals. If my son decides to marry a Chinese girl, how is that supposed to change the outcome according to what I think King means (that is, ‘destiny’ as a nation)? Or what if he decides to marry an African girl? That’s preposterous. The implication is clear: That culture (knowledge) is based not on IDEAS but on GENES. That’s the basis for Eugenics.

    Has it ever occurred to Mr. King that Judeo-Christian values come from a religion invented in the Middle East? Exactly what role did genes play in that?

    The idea that civilization is the product of genetics is nonsense. Ideas that are superior are easily copied by reasonable individuals. If Mr. King thinks that the future of a civilization rests in the genetic makeup of people, then he has VERY LITTLE REGARD for the superiority of the ideas promoted by said civilization. You only protect that which is too fragile for normal use.

    Trumpistas are becoming more and more unhinged as minutes go by.

    1. If Mr. King thinks that the future of a civilization rests in the genetic makeup of people,

      He doesn’t, you’re putting words into his mouth, because it’s easier for you to just call him a eugenicist than actually address his argument, regardless of whether it’s good or bad.

      Trumpistas are becoming more and more unhinged as minutes go by.

      Thus sayth the unhinged man growing increasingly hysterical in his attempts to defend against imaginary strawmen.

      1. Yea what happened to old mexican? Was he always like this?

        All his posts whine about trumpistas. I thought there was actual content before

        1. Re: american socialist,

          Yea what happened to old mexican? Was he always like this?

          You must be joking.

            1. I’ve ALWAYS been the same. I’m a libertarian, unabashed and unrepentant. Why the sudden surprise? That’s why I am questioning your seriousness.

              1. Were you whining about trumpistas the past decade over and over and over and over?

        2. Yea what happened to old mexican? Was he always like this?

          Yes he was always like that. Well in the ten years I’ve been here he’s always been like that. Sanctimonious prick that can’t argue in good faith or see past hepis dogma.

      2. Re: John Titor,

        He doesn’t, you’re putting words into his mouth

        I’m not doing anything of the sort. I am reading his words and pointing out what his argument implies.

        Thus sayth the unhinged man growing increasingly hysterical in his attempts to defend against imaginary strawmen.

        You make me laugh, JT. I’ve been commenting on these pages for more than a decade and yet you haven’t figured out I’ve been arguing with the same exact principles? All of a sudden, I’m being hysterical?

        I don’t think so. What is happening is that Trumpistas merely broke down the closet door while flamboyantly screaming “Donald, mi muchachote! Papazote! Ay!”

        1. No, you’re not ‘implying’ anything, you’re just plain making things up. He could, for example, be referring to culture or religion, or any other group identifier. “Somebody else’s babies” does not have to be racial or eugenicist in nature, you’re the one attaching that meaning. That is not his position, you are either lying or delusional if you think that’s the case, end of story. Hence why you are coming off as unhinged.

          All of a sudden, I’m being hysterical?

          You’re making up eugenicist strawman positions so you can stomp your feet and bray about the evil ‘Trumpistas’ lurking behind every corner. You don’t seem to understand how unbalanced you come off.

          1. Re: John Titor,

            No, you’re not ‘implying’ anything,

            Read carefully, JT, I’m saying King is implying it. Not me. It wasn’t me the one who claimed that whites should reproduce more in order to offset the influx of immigrants. That implies immigrants are non-white, despite the fact that some of them ARE. It wasn’t me who suggested whites are better at rearing children than non-whites: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies”.

            What else is one supposed to take from that?

            You’re making up eugenicist strawman positions

            King’s propositions are so simple-minded as to defy creating strawmen out of them. He is implying what he is implying. You’re merely choosing to obfuscate for reasons I can’t yet fathom.

            1. King said differences had nothing to do with their humanity, but their backgrounds: “It’s the culture, not the blood. If you could go anywhere in the world and adopt these little babies and put them into households that were already assimilated into America, those babies will grow up as American as any other baby.”

              ….Oh look, he specifically clarifies that he’s referring to culture, not race. In short, he wasn’t ‘implying’ anything of the nature you said, and you are, again, either lying or actively delusional if you continue to pretend that is the case. Perhaps if one actually addressed reality, not the imaginary strawmen living in one’s head, one might come to an accurate conclusion.

              1. Re: John Titor,

                Oh look, he specifically clarifies that he’s referring to culture

                Indeed? Then when he says this: “You cannot rebuild your civilization with someone else’s babies”, was he referring to those babies that do NOT look like you or me, or babies that DO look like you or me? Doesn’t that statement at least contradict the other statement you chose to defend? On which intellectual anthill are you going to make your last stand?

                The problem with your defense of this man, JT, is that you’re tasking yourself with the impossible. The man IS an idiot. Stop defending him for a second and read what he said.

                1. was he referring to those babies that do NOT look like you or me, or babies that DO look like you or me?

                  It’s almost like I DIRECTLY QUOTED HIM WHERE HE CLARIFIED HIS POSITION AND SAID IT WAS ABOUT CULTURE. Get it through your thick skull. You;re lecturing me on ‘intellectual anthills’ when all you can do is ignore actual statements and just make up your own.

                  Stop defending him for a second and read what he said

                  Unlike you have actually read what he said.

                  The problem with your defense of this man, JT, is that you’re tasking yourself with the impossible.

                  Yes, because my opponent is delusional and would rather construct a make-believe story about the evil eugenicist than actually discuss reality. We’re done here.

                  1. *Unlike you I have actually read what he said.

        1. “Thus sayth the unhinged man growing increasingly hysterical in his attempts to defend against imaginary strawmen”

          This sounds like you with your paranoia regarding trumpistas. Give it a rest and relax a bit

          1. Whoops meant to copy this

            “Trumpistas are becoming more and more unhinged as minutes go by.”

          2. Re: american socialist,

            This sounds like you with your paranoia regarding trumpistas. Give it a rest and relax a bit

            Pointing out to the obvious fact that most Trump supporters espouse truly bad economic thinking like mercantilism and protectionism, and downright lies about immigrants and their presumed detrimental effect on the economy, is not the same as being ‘paranoid’, AmSoc. Or maybe you think Bastiat or Hayek were paranoid as well, considering I am basing my arguments on theirs.

            1. Yea that is a cool story if all immigrants were being banned which they are not. you are knocking down a strawman

              And btw trade is still on going

              1. Re: american socilaist,

                Yea that is a cool story if all immigrants were being banned

                OK, now THAT’S a strrawman. I haven’t made the claim that all immigrants are being banned. I am pointing out the bad economic thinking behind the idea that immigration should be curbed or stopped altogether, which is what many Trumpistas have asked for.

                1. Uh no you just said trumpistas think immigrants are detrimental to the economy which is a strawman. It was about illegal immigrants…not immigrants in general

                2. Where has the idea been floated that all immigration should be curbed or stopped all together? Where has trump proposed this….especially the stopped part

                  That is a strawman

                3. Open borders is a fairly recent political theory.

                  You think there is no need to actually examine its efficacy?

                  Is it making France better? How about Sweden? Germany? The UK? I’m not seeing the benefits, but if you can, please feel free to list them. We’re watching Western civ decide that the problem is Western Civ, and not the other cultures who — unlike Western Civ — had no real problem with such niceties as slavery. Western Civ curbed that shit hard. Other cultures would never have done so.

                4. I am pointing out the bad economic thinking behind the idea that immigration should be curbed or stopped altogether, which is what many Trumpistas have asked for.

                  We can have open borders if we get rid of the welfare state. As long as we have the welfare state, immigration needs to be curbed and limited to people who are skilled, tolerant, and productive, i.e., not the average Mexican and not the average Syrian.

            2. Did hayek and bastiat make arguments resembling that of a third grader?

              “The trumpistas are so stupid derrrrrp”

              over and over and over again

              1. Re: american socilaist,

                Ok, now you’re arguing like Tony.

                First you asked me why am I being paranoid. I answered that “using sound economic arguments to point out bad economic policies espoused by Trumpistas is not being paranoid.” I’m merely challenging your assumption and your attempt at defaming me.

                Now you accuse me of merely insulting Trumpistas. You seem to fail to understanding the point that I don’t have to insult them.

                If you’re responding to my quip that “Trumpistas are becoming more unhinged by the minute”, I only have to point back to King’s ridiculous recommendation about making more white babies.

                1. You are strawmanning the trumpistas position on immigration.

                  1. Re: american socialist

                    You are strawmanning the trumpistas position on immigration.

                    Have you read opinion on what they want, lately? Many are especially obsessed with H1B visas. The idea that immigration policy should “first and foremost serve the interests of the American Worker” as El Trumpo has promoted many times does not suggest much legal immigration, or any at all, because what are the interests of the “American Worker” after all, and why should they be more important than the interests of the companies and employers who employ immigrants?

                2. Show where you have put forth sound economic reasoning why trumpistas policies are bad here in this thread

                  1. Re: american socialist,

                    Show where you have put forth sound economic reasoning why trumpistas policies are bad here in this thread

                    Not in *this* thread, Greedo! In many other threads.

                    1. Any threads within the last week?

                3. First you asked me why am I being paranoid.I answered that “using sound economic arguments to point out bad economic policies espoused by Trumpistas is not being paranoid.”

                  Ahem. “STEVE KING IS A SECRET EUGENICIST, I KNOW WHAT ALL THE TRUMPISTAS THINK IN THEIR HEARTS.”

    2. If my son decides to marry a Chinese girl, how is that supposed to change the outcome according to what I think King means (that is, ‘destiny’ as a nation)? Or what if he decides to marry an African girl? That’s preposterous. The implication is clear: That culture (knowledge) is based not on IDEAS but on GENES. That’s the basis for Eugenics.

      We’re not talking about who your son marries, we’re talking about averages over populations. We’re also talking about actual immigrant families, which bring with them a mix of culture and genes.

      Ideas that are superior are easily copied by reasonable individuals.

      If it were so easy, then black and Hispanic populations would quickly rise to the American mean in terms of crime rates, intelligence, and income. That’s obviously not happening, whatever the reason may be.

      Trumpistas are becoming more and more unhinged as minutes go by.

      What is “unhinged” is the idea that the US has an obligation to let in millions of people from totalitarian societies with low skills, low education, and generations of poverty.

      The US should select for high-skill immigrants, just like Canada, Japan, and Europe do, in a race-blind manner, as simple as that. So, any smart Mexicans and Kenyans should be allowed in, on the same terms as any smart European or Japanese.

  29. Is soave being serious here?

    “this moment, perhaps no one is working harder to weaken two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West?restrained government and free trade?than U.S. President Donald Trump”

    Free trade agreements which are really government crony regulated trade? How is trump weakening govt restraint and with respect to what? I am not sure at this point that it isnt mainly more of the same as previous potus

    1. I havent seen trump bring about totalitarian society like say a cuba or what the guy in turkey is sdoing

  30. Let’s vote with 100 million Pakistanis on the proper method of execution for apostates from Islam!

  31. “belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.”

    With open borders it belongs to anyone who gets their ass over here

  32. Trump is not on par yet with fdr, lbj, woodrow to name a few in terms of less restrained government

  33. If politics is solely defined by culture, how do you explain North Korea x South Korea? Hong Kong x China? Chile x Argentina? Besides, immigration is a two-way street; immigrants do have a little influence on mainstream political culture, but the reverse is true as well, and to a larger extent

    1. First two are societies where political culture was heavily influenced and changed by a dominant power enforcing their standards (in North Korea’s case, the Soviet Union backing local communists and funding their economy, in Hong Kong’s case, British cultural and trade dominance) Argentina is more of an immigrant nation than Chile due to low native populations, and it’s definitely influenced their cultures in different ways.

      1. Yes, but Chile is less white/European than Argentina, and yet much more economically free by any measure, which I think is more relevant to King’s point than being immigrant versus native born. The fact that Americans of Italian or Scottish ancestry are certainly more libertarian than Italians or Scots also indicates that a non-authoritarian country as the US does have the ability to mold immigrants’ political culture. Canada is today more economically free than the US by many metrics, despite having received much more immigrants per capita over the last decades. The problem in Europe is radical multiculturalism which creates segregation instead of absorption of classical liberal values.

        1. Late, but I don’t view race as an indicator of a likelihood of classical liberalism, my point was that Chile and Argentina are not comparable in the same way as China or the two Koreas as their cultures have long developed independently of each other (sure, southern China has a different culture than the north, but there’s plenty of examples of southern Chinese cities going the opposite direction of Hong Kong).

          Canada is today more economically free than the US by many metrics, despite having received much more immigrants per capita over the last decades.

          This has more to do with both a dominant political power enforcing their standards, and the type of immigrant we permit into the country. Specifically, Tory control of Parliament has lead to a significant opening up of economic freedom in Canada, but with the Libs in now that might change. Also, Canadian immigrants, due to the points system, tend to on average be more moderate or conservative due to both cultural social conservatism, a high percentage of small business ownership, and the predominance of East Asian immigration.

    2. If politics is solely defined by culture, how do you explain North Korea x South Korea? Hong Kong x China? Chile x Argentina?

      That’s simple: those countries don’t have the same culture anymore. A society based on free markets and personal responsibility takes a long time to build up but can be destroyed in just a few decades of socialist/communist/totalitarian rule. That’s what happened in North Korea and East Germany. That’s why China wisely left Hong Kong alone.

      Besides, immigration is a two-way street; immigrants do have a little influence on mainstream political culture, but the reverse is true as well, and to a larger extent

      Liberal free market societies are pretty fragile, and they can assimilate immigrants only at a limited rate.

      But Democrats and progressives want to do away with assimilation altogether and believe in “multiculturalism” and government redistribution, which is pretty much guaranteed to destroy a liberal, free market society in rather short order.

  34. So for open borders folks….what about the situation with north and south korea?

    Do i just let them in not to abridge their movement so i can be libertarian?

    1. Re: american socialist

      So for open borders folks….what about the situation with north and south korea?

      Are you telling me that SK has its border closed to NK defectors and escaped prisoners? Or what is your question?

      Remember East and West Germany? Did West Germany became poorer for letting in East Germans who jumped the fence?

      1. Open borders folks say open borders means anyone is free to go and come as they place. Do you have to let in hostiles? Otherwise you arent subjective in who comes in

        Im trying to understand your position

        1. Re: american socialist,

          Open borders folks say open borders means anyone is free to go and come as they place

          Free marketers like me favor the free flow of goods, services and labor.

          Do you have to let in hostiles?

          No, because by definition a hostile has evil intentions, i.e. is an AGGRESSOR. That’s what guns are for. But just because there are hostiles does not mean precluding EVERYONE ELSE from engaging in free commerce, which includes inviting people IN (i.e. immigrants)

          Im trying to understand your position

          What the….

          JUST WHAT IS IT ABOUT FREE MARKETS DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

          1. How would you determine their intentions? Do you wait until they actually do it? Or do you make a judgement?

            1. Re: american socialist,

              How would you determine their intentions?

              Simple – by their actions. A person who comes to my store to buy a pear is not engaging in aggression. A person who comes to my store to rob a pear will be perforated by buck shot. It’s that simple.

              What you want, like Tony, is some sort of guarantee. There are NO guarantees in life, except this: granting the State more power in exchange of more safety is a sure fire GUARANTEE of losing all your freedoms.

              1. But ya have to let them in first to determine their actions. That is where your open borders utopia falls apart. You cant have property rights and then claim people should be free to go where they please. It is a contradiction

                1. Re: american socialist,

                  But ya have to let them in first to determine their actions.

                  Ah.

                  Who is being paranoid now, AmSoc?

                  1. Anyway, I have to leave. The wife is calling.

          2. Free marketers like me favor the free flow of goods, services and labor.

            That’s not what you favor. What you actually favor is the free flow of low-skill Democratic voters and cheap labor who then receive free government services and insurance in the US paid for by others.

            But just because there are hostiles does not mean precluding EVERYONE ELSE from engaging in free commerce, which includes inviting people IN (i.e. immigrants)

            I think people like you should be free “to let people in” if you make a firm commitment to pay for any and all their government services and you put up a bond ($500k-$1m) to pay for them.

            Otherwise, YOU are the AGGRESSOR: you force me to pay for Juanita’s abortions, her boyfriend’s incarceration, her welfare, her son’s education, and her obese mother’s dialysis and coronary bypass operation. And all that because you want to hire dirt cheap avocado pickers for your government subsidized farm.

            Fuck off slaver.

      2. Given the cost involved with reunification — yeah, they did. They felt it was worth it, but yes, they suffered economically for a long time.

      3. It matters how many and whether they want to be more like you, or want you to be more like them.

      4. Remember East and West Germany? Did West Germany became poorer for letting in East Germans who jumped the fence?

        About 30 years, the total number of people who crossed the border from East Germany to West Germany were 40100, or a little more than 1000/year. And those were generally educated people who were highly motivated and spoke German natively.

        Now that the border to East Germany is, in fact, open, West Germany has become saddled with millions of communists and neo-Nazis from the former East Germany and has a permanent 5.5% income surtax to deal with the enormous problems in East Germany. In fact, reunification has been so corrosive to German democracy that communists have a large permanent presence in parliament, and fascists are gaining more and more political power. That’s what happens if you open the borders to a country corrupted by only half a century of communism.

        Open borders with Mexico, a place that has always been an anti-democratic, illiberal shithole, is an even worse idea than opening the borders to East Germany was.

        So, thanks for bringing up this excellent illustration.

        1. Yes, indeed.

          Thanks for elaborating on it.

  35. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has drawn criticism for suggesting in a Tweet that Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders is right about immigration: specifically, that native-born white people need to start having more babies in order to offset the influx of immigrants.

    King wants his artichoke pickers to be more WASPy?

    OK, the man is an idiot. But who comes out looking more idiotic: the idiot or the idiots who defend him?

    1. I vote for the idiot who thinks Muslim refugees are going to pick even one artichoke.

    2. Can you cite King’s ACTUAL Tweet that said specifically that?

      Not a writer’s OPINION on what he said — the VERBATIM tweet where he specifically said “white folks need ot have more babies in order to offset the influx of immigrants”

    3. King wants his artichoke pickers to be more WASPy?

      King doesn’t want them to be illegal aliens. Neither would I. If we kick out the illegal aliens while WASPs take their jobs? No, of course not. Instead, agriculture in the US will become more automated, just like it is in Europe. The result is more high tech jobs in agriculture and higher productivity.

      Instead, we are hiring low skill, low paid Mexicans, and the result is that we are turning more and more into a low skill economy. That must end. Immigration and work permits should be limited to high skill workers.

      1. “Instead, we are hiring low skill, low paid Mexicans, and the result is that we are turning more and more into a low skill economy. That must end. Immigration and work permits should be limited to high skill workers.”

        That sounds like central planning. Is that what you’re advocating?

        I thought we were free market people who should be arguing that technology will provide answers when it’s economically advantageous? Who loses in the immigrant farm worker scenario? The farmers are happy with the work. The workers are happy to get paid. The consumers are happy that goods are cheap. This sounds like a pretty good situation to me.

  36. “…it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.”

    Proggies hardest hit.

  37. Oldmexican apparently thinks saying “trumpistas are so stupid and bigots derrp” is channeling arguments of bastiat and hayek

  38. Where in the tweet did King say or imply that immigrant babies are destroying America? I’m not sure I have this right either, but I think King is simply *noticing* that native birth rates in the West are low and we are leaning on immigrant birth rates to keep the population up. This seems to a true observation though it is much easier to notice in Europe where Italy, for example, has birth rate of 1.1 children per woman. I think 2.4 is about the average rate needed to maintain a population.

    So why is the birth rate so low in the West?

    There is now the cultural expectation that women should self-actualize by having a satisfying career in favor of raising a family. This results in women choosing career tracks in their 20’s and 30’s and waiting too long to have kids. If they have children, it is often just one, as it gets medically more complicated the longer they wait.

    Then there is the genocide of Black American babies through abortion.

    Government policies are heavily involved in promoting both of those native population controls. I find those policies much more intrusive and un-libertarian than immigration controls. YMMV.

    1. Last I checked was a few years ago, but if it weren’t for Mexican teenagers, texas would be shrinking.

    2. There is now the cultural expectation that women should self-actualize by having a satisfying career in favor of raising a family.

      Oh, it’s much more than a “cultural expectation”, it’s something we massively subsidize, with government redistribution for education, child care, health care, elderly care, retirement plans, Medicare, etc.

  39. King is absolutely right. ‘Dying’ western societies that are having babies very far below replacement rates simply cannot build their future on large amounts of immigrants. Immigration rates are far in excess of assimilation rates and at the current trend, western Europe will be gone as we know it. The US is struggling itself in many areas, with cultural changes at odds with current American culture.

    People are taking it in the worst way and closing their minds to discussion and engages. Stupid reactionary BS is what defines Progs these days.

  40. Can’t figure out why politicians spend all of their time saying nothing and not addressing big issues. That never ends up going poorly for them. Cannot fathom allegedly “smart” folks taking the most extreme reading of their words and blasting them with it.

    You’re not going to protect Western civilization by importing people who hate Western civilization. You’d have thought the example of the Roman Empire would demonstrate this, but apparently, lessons are not learned.

    Doubly so since our country has decided to stop explaining why we’re special and, instead, indoctrinating in immigrants that, really, we kinda suck.

  41. As Amash notes, our civilization does not belong to people of a certain ethnicity or racial heritage?it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.

    I have no idea what “our civilization belongs to” is even supposed to mean; it is empty verbiage. All we are talking about here is what kind of people we should grant the privilege of immigrating into the US.

    As for who “subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets”, I’d say 95% of the Democratic party doesn’t and 99% of people living in the Middle East and 99% of illegal Mexicans don’t.

    Which is why many people who do subscribe to these ideas want immigration from those places sharply limited (unfortunately, we can’t get rid of progressives or socialists who are already citizens; we’ll just have to hope that their kids will come to reject their illiberal and destructive ideas).

  42. My ancestors lived in the Swedish ghettos of Minneapolis. They lived in Swedish neighborhoods, went to Swedish churches, and spoke Swedish in the house. Their kids (gasp) married Germans and Italians. Their kid’s kids married blacks, Asians, and Latinos, and also other “white” people. No big deal. This game has been played out for centuries. People freak out like we have never assimilated immigrants to this country. Take a deep breath, or drink whiskey – works for me.

    1. We used to TRY to assimilate.

      Multiculturalism stopped that.

  43. Kind of funny hearing erstwhile segregationists complain about enclaves.

  44. …two of the most fundamental norms of the civilized West?restrained government and free trade….

    Where can I find an example of this “restrained government” you mention?

    The USA has the largest and costliest government in human history, and the European governments are pretty far from being “restrained” in any meaningful sense of the word.

  45. As Amash notes, our civilization does not belong to people of a certain ethnicity or racial heritage?it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.

    That’s a contradiction of the argument you attempt to make. You have just prescribed the ideas an immigrant must subscribe to be part of our civilisation. Who says? And who reserves the power to enforce such a policy? Not the writers at Reason, that’s for sure.

    And if it’s not an actionable policy, then it’s empty theory divorced from the real world.

  46. Dr James Mitchell, the man who waterboarded the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is interviewed by Mark Steyn, and I’ve dropped you in at the salient moment where Mitchell relates what KSM told him regarding their cultural infiltration of America (and the West at large):

    https://youtu.be/3LZA3_1LbWY?t=33m31s

    To which, we would have the reply from Reason, et al., “Sure, let ’em in, for to do otherwise would be to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion, and we’ll worry about changing hearts and minds later on. Maybe we’ll send them some literature or invite them to a Cato get-together, have a few cocktails, get to know each other as friends.”

  47. “it belongs to anyone and everyone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas about free speech, the rule of law, democracy, and free markets.”

    Right. Where are those people? I’m all for open borders when such a thing is a reality, but I can’t agree that the current influx of immigrants believe even one of those things you listed. For shit’s sake, American’s don’t believe most of it!!!

  48. That’s not the Reason line. It’s actually, “Throw the borders open to anyone who wants to come here no matter what they believe and regardless of how much they steal from American taxpayers.”

  49. So Palestinian-American Justin Amash thinks immigration to the U.S. is great. I’d be interested in knowing whether he thinks that Palestine between the wars could rebuild its civilization with other people’s babies (say, those of European Jews). Or whether he thinks that modern Israel can rebuild its civilization with other people’s babies (say, those of Palestinians who fled in 1947-49). Or does he think that unrestricted immigration is just a good for the United States?

  50. He even said he hopes one day intermarriage will lead to everybody being the same color. That is one of liberals’ biggest talking points. iMessage on PC and iMessage for PC

  51. Maybe we’ll send them some literature or invite them to a Cato get-together, have a few cocktails, get to know each other as friends.” Zapya for PC and Zapya for windows

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.