Welfare

The Nativist Bias in the Welfare State

It is making even Canadians act more ruthlessly rather than benevolently

|

The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of

Teddy
Christiaan Triebert via Foter.com / CC BY-NC

person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan.

But the opposite has happened: Protecting the welfare state from foreign moochers has become the single biggest stimulus for nativism in the West. That's true in America, Europe, and, most surprisingly, the paragon of compassion to America's north, Canada. The more the welfare state has tried to elbow self-interest out of our accepted understanding of a "just society," the more this self-interest has asserted itself — and in ever-more vexing ways.

In America, the notion that immigrants are a drain on social welfare programs is as popular as it is fallacious. Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too, including for low-skilled immigrants (many of whom are undocumented). Indeed, the taxes and economic contributions of immigrants — including the low-skilled — dwarf what they consume in public services. This is partly because the 1996 welfare reform act barred immigrants from most means-tested benefits. But the bigger reason is that immigrants come to America for jobs, not welfare benefits. The labor force participation rate of foreign-born men in 2010 was 80.1 percent, a full 10 percentage points higher than that of native-born men. Furthermore, immigrants tend to gravitate to states with the lowest per capital welfare spending — maybe because they have more jobs.

Nonetheless, the mere fact that the welfare state exists and that immigrants may theoretically become a drain on it has been enough to trigger a bad case of us-versus-them in this Land of Immigrants. It has become the gateway argument that seduces people to a more general nativist suspicion of foreigners — which is why nativist outfits such as the Federation for Immigration Reform and quasi-nativist ones such as the Center for Immigration Studies constantly pump out studies about immigrant welfare use. One of President Trump's leaked executive order drafts contemplated not only barring immigrants likely to use public assistance, but deporting those who do, perhaps even if no fraud is involved.

The situation is even worse in Europe, where nativist politicians have made even deeper inroads — and this despite the fact that many European countries need immigrants even more than America, thanks to their below-replacement fertility rates and aging populations.

Austria, Spain, and France — which have never been super-friendly to immigrants — are tightening up. And so are more open nations like Denmark and Sweden, which have introduced a complex set of measures to control their borders. The latest example of this anti-immigrant trend came in the recent Dutch elections, where the incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte defeated the ultra-restrictionist Geert Wilders — the Dutch Donald Trump — but only after promising to impose stiff restrictions on migrant benefits to stop alleged welfare tourism. Likewise, although Germany has been heroic in its commitment to absorbing refugees fleeing the war-ravaged Middle East, it is also seeking to expel EU citizens who remain jobless for six months out of fear that they are simply hanging around for welfare benefits — never mind that there is little evidence of mass welfare abuse. Sweden, which prides itself on its cradle-to-grave welfare social programs, is flirting with new restrictions on immigrant benefits — as is England.

But the nation that takes first prize in welfare-state protectiveness is the putative paragon of human kindness: Canada.

Canada cannot afford a full-blown case of restrictionism because it is underpopulated and aging fast — and thus admits more than twice as many immigrants as America, in terms of a percentage of its population. But to protect its "universal" health-care system from foreigners, Canada ruthlessly tips its entry standards toward the young and healthy.

Old people have a very hard time getting into the country. It is impossible for parents and grandparents of landed immigrants (the equivalent of green card holders) to rack up enough points on Canada's 100-point scale to become eligible for immigration on their own. They can theoretically apply under the family-reunification quota, but that is so tiny — between 5,000 (previous conservative government) to 10,000 (current liberal government) — that wait times can sometimes span eight years.

But Canada's real harshness is directed toward the disabled, against whom it has maintained a de facto ban for decades. It requires prospective immigrants to submit to a physical and mental health exam — not merely to screen for communicable diseases as in America — but to rule out any expensive conditions that would "excessively strain" the national health system. Mild intellectual disabilities in any family member can be a disqualifier. Canadian citizens used to have a hard time even bringing in foreign spouses with expensive conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

None of this is meant as a criticism. Maybe Canada doesn't have a choice, at least if it wants to avoid running too quickly out of "other people's money" — to use Margaret Thatcher's immortal definition of socialism — by admitting more people that it can cover at any given time. But the point is that instead of making Canada more open-minded and benevolent, its national health-care system has made it more self-protective.

In other words, if America and Europe are becoming more insular to guard their welfare states, Canada is becoming more exclusive. All of this flies in the face of using the welfare state to create a "just society" full of compassion and caring communities. Indeed, in their effort to use the welfare state as a vehicle to create a new spirit of cosmopolitan socialism, liberals have only fueled a resurgence of the mean-spirited tribalism that they'd wished to purge.

Far from making all of humanity hold hands and sweetly sing kumbaya in a newfound brotherhood, welfare statists have ironically produced new fissures and divisions for nativism to prey on.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: Will Brexit lead to Scotxit?

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. Look, another article in which Shikha calls everyone nativist assholes. At least we get some input into why she doesn’t care about the welfare state.

    1. That teddy bear is so white, that….

    2. Look, another article in which Shikha calls everyone nativist assholes.

      Nativist assholes in a land of immigrants isn’t even very subtle.

    3. At least we get some input into why she doesn’t care about the welfare state.

      Wrong. The whole point of the article is to show progressives that the welfare state they support makes it much easier for nativists to convince people against immigration. So the whole nativist thrust that progressives are freaked out about comes into being in part because of the presence of a welfare state.

      The last two sentences of the article: Indeed, in their effort to use the welfare state as a vehicle to create a new spirit of cosmopolitan socialism, liberals have only fueled a resurgence of the mean-spirited tribalism that they’d wished to purge.

      Far from making all of humanity hold hands and sweetly sing kumbaya in a newfound brotherhood, welfare statists have ironically produced new fissures and divisions for nativism to prey on.

      1. One thing I hardly ever see discussed:
        Fed-Guv has inbuilt bias to let in more “illegal humans”… Why? Fed-Guv passes unfunded mandates (you locals will school the illegal-human kids, and admit them to the emergency room, and you locals can spring for it).
        Yet, via a zillion fake SSN cards, the illegal humans prop up Social Security, for the benefits of the natives, and these illegal humans cannot collect! Fed-Guv likes THIS? Free money to prop up SS for the natives! This is to the tune of $billions per year! And it is obviously a Fed-Guv program, hence the bias?
        So in my geezer years in the retirement home for enfeebled minds, I will cuss and swear at the over-worked illegals who are wiping my ass and hand-feeding me, for them supposedly being welfare mooches, will they continue to pay in SS payments for me and my kind, and are not themselves eligible to share the bennies? Welcome to hypocrisy!

        1. Some serious Shika-derp there, bro…..

    4. I hadn’t caught that Shikha wrote this – or I wouldn’t have bothered. Let’s call out one flat-out lie: That criminal aliens contribute more than they consume. Let’s look at just one number: The cost of public education from K-12. This figure averages $12,296 per year per student. Assuming a criminal alien comes to America as a first grader, the cost for 12 years of schooling will top $147,500. Neglecting any interest accrual, just exactly how does the criminal alien repay this money to taxpayers? Assuming they pay $5000 a year in taxes, it would take more than 30 years… again, neglecting interest. Taxes don’t reach that level until $36,400 of taxable income – so it’s a safe bet that criminal aliens NEVER repay taxpayer money spent on schooling.

      And that assumes they NEVER incur any other taxpayer-funded expenses.

      But of course, they do. Every time they drive on a road, every time they use any public resource, they cost money which they never repay.

      I don’t mind that Shikha peddles her lies. There are plenty like her out there ready to make excuses for criminals. I just hope that some day it all bites her in the ass – hard. Like the 14-year-old girl who was recently raped by two criminal aliens.

  2. According to the progressives, the only “free rider” problem we should care about is health care. Other than requiring everyone to have health insurance, in order to end “free riding,” for any other issue it is “Welcome Aboard!”

    1. “According to the progressives, the only “free rider” problem we should care about is health care. Other than requiring everyone to have health insurance, in order to end “free riding,”

      They don’t care about free riding in health care either. They just used that blather as an excuse for passing Obamacare.

      And of course Obamacare vastly increased free riding rather than reduce it.

      Which is exactly what they really intended.

  3. In other words, once you go socialist, you end up becoming nationalist too.
    Didn’t both Orwell and Hayek spell out this progression explicitly almost a century ago?

    The only question is whether the national socialist takeover of the Republican party spells doom for any hope of a return to free market libertarian norms.

    1. You’ve Godwinned it only 3 posts in? Well done.

      1. National socialist is an accurate description of Trump’s policies. He’s promised not to touch social security or medicare, or the core elements of the ACA – guarenteed issue and community rating. And he’s no question whatsoever a nationalist.

        1. Have you bashed a fash today?

          1. Everyone should bash collectivists of all kinds, every day.
            It should be a regular exercise to keep our retarded tribal instincts in check.

            Like that scene in ‘Life of Bryan’ “We are all individuals! ” “We should all think for ourselves!”

            1. It should be a regular exercise to keep our retarded tribal instincts in check.

              Don’t worry, you’ll break human nature some day.

              1. If you can’t train it out, you beat it out.

            2. If you hate collectivism so much, you should stop collectivizing people who don’t agree with you. Otherwise you’re likely to get punched in the mouth by someone you just gave permission to do so.

              1. If you like collectivism so much, you should get the fuck off of libertarian message boards.

                1. If you like collectivism so much, you should get the fuck off of libertarian message board

                  Libertarian is not a synonym for Individualist.

                  But let’s set that aside for a moment. Have you ever heard of Socialistic Individualism? The motto of SI is “you’re unique, just like everyone else”. I think you would be a perfect fit for the organization and as the founder I am in the unique position of being able to grant you any position and title you wish.

                  1. Libertarian is not a synonym for Individualist.

                    Individualism is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. If you don’t believe in individualism, you can fuck right off. Go live in Saudi Arabia or some place where everyone’s a member of a tribe.

                  2. I am having trouble with trying to see why Hazel is pissing you all off so much. I understand he said some shit in the past, but I have no problem with what he is saying here. In my mind, individualism is a necessary condition for libertarianism. Otherwise the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

                    1. individualism is a necessary condition for libertarianism

                      Let me put it another way, being a libertarian (and I should note here that I am not) does not preclude collectivism. As I understand it, libertarians work as a collective for a good many things. Say collective protection for one. To say that a libertarian cannot possibly be a collectivist is actually pretty retarded.

                    2. May be we should clarify some terms, Sparky. Being an individualist does not mean rejecting working in groups or for groups. But it does mean believing in the primacy of the individual.

                    3. That’s a non-standard definition of “collectivist”. A libertarian could be a small-group communist, but they would have to recognize the fundamental individual right of each member to leave the collective.

                      By definition, collectivism implies that rights do not apply to individuals, but apply to *groups*. This for example “group rights” mean that a collective can force an individual to participate in a collective effort, and “group rights” can mean (for example) that the cultural integrity of the group can be regarded as a value above individual autonomy. For example , justifying things like mandatory wearing of the hijab, because it preserves the cultural uniqueness of Muslim society. This is why many non-western leftists object to individualism, they regard it as an avenue by which “western values” infect their culture, and think the cultural integrity of the group is an intrinsic value.

                    4. Well put, Hazel. That is how I use the terms as well.

                    5. By definition, collectivism implies that rights do not apply to individuals, but apply to *groups*. This for example “group rights” mean that a collective can force an individual to participate in a collective effort

                      Great, now explain how collectivist and alt-right apply roundly to anyone who doesn’t agree with you regardless of their actual reasons. Then please explain why you’ve chosen to use collectivist and alt-right as catchall slurs for people who don’t agree with you.

                    6. The anti-immigrationist position heavily relies on collectivist arguments.

                      #1. The believe that the collective rights of “the nation” trump individual rights of freedom of association. If I as an individual wish to hire, or rent to, an immigrant, that is my right under individual rights theory. However, the anti-immigrationists wishes to argue that I *don’t* have such a right. In arguing against such a right, they frequently make arguments that “citizenship” entails a binding obligation on individuals to obey the group’s standards as to who may be permitted entry into the country as a whole, superceding who I may admit to my private property. That is an argument to the collective rights of the group over the individual.

                      #2. They believe that “American culture” deserves protection from foreign influences. The culture being a kind of collective group property whose intrinsic value they believe deserves protection. They believe that individual Americans rights to freedom of association are superceded by group rights to preserve American cultural identity. (This is literally a mirror image of Islamist arguments against “Westernization”, BTW).

                    7. #3. In making the cultural identity argument they often cite America’s “European” heritage, which is a thinly veiled appeal to racism.

                      #4. They often make broad generalizations about different cultures such as claiming that Hispanics are innately socialist or statist or otherwise incapable of assimilating. They believe that immigrants from those cultures should be generally restricted, which is another way of saying that all individuals from those cultures should be treated collectively as identical and denied entriy on the basis of their collective group characteristics, rather than being judged as individuals. Again, that is a collectivist argument.

                    8. #3. In making the cultural identity argument they often cite America’s “European” heritage, which is a thinly veiled appeal to racism.

                      Saying something is thinly veiled, a dog whistle, etc is just you wanting to call people racists for no real reason.

                      #4. They often make broad generalizations about different cultures such as claiming that Hispanics are innately socialist or statist or otherwise incapable of assimilating.

                      I have no doubt that people make this argument. I also have no doubt that not everyone makes this argument. I suspect that ‘They’ make this generalization based on the fact that some Hispanics do in fact refuse to assimilate. Clearly we shouldn’t judge all Hispanics based on the actions of some any more than you should judge all who disagree with you based on the beliefs of some.

                      BTW, I particularly enjoyed your consistent use of the nebulous ‘They’.

                    9. Saying something is thinly veiled, a dog whistle, etc is just you wanting to call people racists for no real reason.

                      LOL. Dog whistles exist. When someone goes around bathering about “european heritage” they mean “white” and I’m not going to be a fucking idiot and pretend otherwise.

                    10. #1. The believe that the collective rights of “the nation” trump individual rights of freedom of association.

                      As many frequently do, you’re grouping legal immigrants and illegal immigrants into one bucket labeled immigrants. Most, if not all, people you’re arguing with preserve the distinction. If you’re against the idea of nations, then say so and you can avoid having to call people nativists and collectivists.

                      #2. They believe that “American culture” deserves protection from foreign influences.

                      Some might, some might not. If you believe that it means anything to be ‘American’ it might be a bit irritating to have to associate with Mexicans that just want to live in America without making any effort to integrate into society. If you’re against the idea of society, then say so and you can avoid calling people nativists and collectivists.

                    11. #1. Well, nationalism IS a collectivist idea. Personally, I don’t think people owe anything resembling “loyalty” or “duty” to a nation-state. “Loyalty” and “duty” imply obligations which are another way of saying that the nation has rights that supercede individual liberty. To say the individual has a “duty” to the nation is another way of saying the individual doesn’t have the right to NOT perform said duty. A person who believes that “nationhood” entails legal or moral duties of the individual to the nation is a collectivist.

                      #2. Being irritated by someone else’s culture isn’t a justification for preventing them from engaging in voluntary commerce. You don’t have the right to control what happens in “society” or to force people to participate in it in a particular way (or at all). Libertarianism is all about leaving people alone to do their own thing, whether that thing is playing Mariachi band music or smoking weed on your private property.

                    12. Libertarianism is all about leaving people alone to do their own thing, whether that thing is playing Mariachi band music or smoking weed on your private property.

                      So is anarchy, which is closer to what you’re proposing.

                    13. OMG, people playing Mariachi music, alone, in the comfort of their own home! ANARCHY!!!!!

                    14. OMG, people playing Mariachi music, alone, in the comfort of their own home! ANARCHY!!!!!

                      So you also have no grasp of what anarchy is. Anarchy is simply statelessness. If you are against the idea of a state existing, you might be an anarchist. Anarchists believe that people can cooperate without the need of an overarching government directing them how to do so.

                      If you believe that anarchists are all about running around breaking shit and attacking people, then you’re probably getting your exposure to anarchy from the same place as others are getting their exposure to libertarianism.

                    15. I’m against the idea of the state exerting control over my freedom of association rights. That’s not statelessness. The state is only legitimate insofar as it protects my rights. A state that tells me who I can or cannot invite onto my private property (to do work or just live there) has exceeded it’s legitimacy.

                    16. I’m against the idea of the state exerting control over my freedom of association rights.

                      Me too! How about that.

                    17. I’m against the idea of the state exerting control over my freedom of association rights.

                      Except for public accommodation law, of course.

                    18. Or to put it more succinctly, collectivism is based on the use of force – not voluntary cooperation.

                    19. It very much rules out collectivism. If you’re this uneducated, perhaps you should try dictionary.com or something.

                      Collectivism, by necessity, requires coercion.

                    20. If you’re this uneducated, perhaps you should try dictionary.com or something.

                      Who are you arguing with?

                    21. Not necessarily. Collectivism can also be enforced through social pressure and I find that distasteful as well. For example, a religious community might force a young woman into a subservient brood mare role. The young woman might be free to reject this role, but it would mean leaving the community and her family. Many might not have the strength for that and will choose a life of unhappy servitude to avoid a life cut off from family.

                      What does libertarianism have to say about such situations? Many would say nothing, as long as the woman is free to leave. That is correct if we take the NAP as the sole root. But as an individualist, I have plenty to say. That does not mean I would support any coercive solutions to change the values of the community. But I sure as hell can speak out against it.

                    22. In my mind, individualism is a necessary condition for libertarianism. Otherwise the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

                      She’s not advocating individualism, she’s advocating radical individualism. Arguably, forcible anarchy.

                      Two or more people contracting among themselves as they see fit is explicitly collectivism. Hazelmeade seems to suggest we should ‘bash’ or oppose that at every opportunity.

                      Obliteration of self (and subsequently family, tribe, race, religion, community, state, etc.) is such a hallmark of socialist dystopias both real and fictional that it’s practically a trope.

                    23. forcible anarchy

                      Does horseshoe theory cover yokels blending into Tony?

                    24. See above. Individuals can cooperate in groups and in a commune, but the individualism is in the recognition of the intrinsic right of each individual to join or leave and cooperative group effort.

                      “Collectivists” do not believe in individual rights. They believe that the group has rights, and that people should be regarded as members of groups, not as individuals. The group owns the individual in a collectivist society. The group decides what the individual may or may not do.
                      It’s a fundamental distinction between Western civilization and many non-Western cultures. One which is often raised by leftists in other parts of the world. Our basic principle of individualism conflicts with the collectivist idea that groups have rights that supercede individual liberty.

                    25. See above. Individuals can cooperate in groups and in a commune, but the individualism is in the recognition of the intrinsic right of each individual to join or leave and cooperative group effort.

                      “Collectivists” do not believe in individual rights.

                      OK, so (a brand of) libertarianism might be more accurately described as contractual collectivism (holding good faith contracts as ‘more inalienable’ than any given or all individual rights) rather than explicit individualism and/or you notion of collectivists requires some clarification or distinct definition/association with assumed social contracts. Even then, wrt libertarianism, the assumed passive enforcement of a/the contract or NAP is a bit of an assumed social contract.

                    26. Contracts must be entered voluntarily. The social contract is basically a collectivist idea. It exists to justify group coercion of individuals.

                      Side point. Why is restricting immigration so important to some people that they need to resort to collectivist arguments for it’s restriction, in direct contradiction of other principles they claim to believe?

                      Why is it such a big deal if a person from another country comes here and does work in exchange for money?

                    27. They’re mad because I refuse to support Trump and won’t pussy-foot around the racism rampant among his supporters.

                      Also, I’m a woman. ( I don’t think that’s why they are mad, just correcting you.)

                    28. You Go, Girl!!! As you remarked elsewhere, Trump is a Nationalist-Socialist indeed!

                      Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
                      Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
                      He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
                      Totally regardless of whereever He sits
                      Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
                      He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
                      He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
                      No matter the words, however absurd!
                      He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
                      Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
                      They say He’ll be impeached by June,
                      Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
                      So He sits and jiggles His balls,
                      Then He Twitters upon the walls
                      “Some come here to sit and think,
                      Some come here to shit and stink
                      But I come here to scratch my balls,
                      And read the writings on the walls
                      Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
                      Giving birth to another Texan!
                      He who writes these lines of wit,
                      Wraps His Trump in little balls,
                      He who reads these lines of wit,
                      Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

              2. Same goes for the threat to violate the NAP.

                1. Same goes for the threat to violate the NAP.

                  A threat which you endorsed?

                  1. You do realize the word “bash” has a figurative meaning right. Which would seem to be indicated by my very next sentence.

                    Does exposure alt-right propaganda generally cause reading comprehension defictis? maybe we should do a study.

                    1. Does exposure alt-right propaganda generally cause reading comprehension defictis? maybe we should do a study.

                      Where would I have been so thoroughly steeped in alt-right propaganda? Are you saying that since I don’t agree with you I must be some kind of alt-right plant? Because only alt-right plants don’t agree with you? Isn’t that collectivism?

                      You do realize the word “bash” has a figurative meaning right.

                      If you want to beg ignorance of the creation of the phrase, I guess I can’t stop you.

            3. Everyone should bash collectivists of all kinds, every day.

              Needs more rants about evil white men and accusing entire groups of racism to really solidify the hypocrisy.

              1. Evil white men, the science is settled on that too.

        2. There’s a difference between socialism and social welfare. Medicare et al are social welfare programs not social or collective ownership of means of production.

          1. Any government program that controls or interferes with a significant portion of the market is Socialistic.Some of that is arguably desirable, but the tendency needs to be closely watched. Socialism wore out any benefit of the doubt it might have been due by 1950.

            1. Yeah man, I agree…
              Any Government Almighty that taxes me significantly in order to make my charity choices for me (redistribution; my property isn’t mine, it belongs to Government Almighty, for Government Almighty to figure out who “deserves” it) is indeed socialistic. % of income that goes to taxes = percent that we are slaves to the State…

          2. Wrong.

            There is NO sustainable difference between socialism and social welfare. Von Mises proved this decades ago.

            THERE IS NO THIRD WAY. Every society that has fooled itself into thinking there is has become more and more socialist until it finally collapses. Just because the American collapse has not completed is not proof that the collapse is not taking place.

            1. And there appears to be plenty of evidence that the collapse is indeed coming. The question is, will the robots rise up and take care of the problem first?

            2. There is NO sustainable difference between socialism and social welfare. Von Mises proved this decades ago.

              The US is the USSR. Or will be, if you wait long enough.

              Yawn.

              People arguing for “historical inevitability” have their heads up their asses.

        3. National socialist is an accurate description of Trump’s policies. He’s promised not to touch social security or medicare, or the core elements of the ACA – guarenteed issue and community rating. And he’s no question whatsoever a nationalist.

          That’s not National Socialism, or even nationalism; that’s plain old welfarism.

          Even Trump’s protectionist economic policies and huge public spending plans don’t make him a nationalist. That’s just big government, tried time and time again.

          Nationalism, at its core, is racist. National Socialism was racist. So if you believe Trump’s immigration policies make him a racist, you can also label him a nationalist, or as above, a National Socialist. Unfortunately, despite what Reason, et al., maintain, enforceable borders, entry and citizenship requirements, do not make one a racist. Their charge falls at the first hurdle.

          1. Trump’s civic nationalism is not racist, as actual white nationalists will point out to you.

          2. Most indications are that Trump is a civic nationalist who would reduce internal regulations, increase our trade barriers to match those of other countries, and expand social welfare protections.

            He moves the Republican party away from it’s corporatist bias to a populist bias. Which is a move in the right direction.

            Note that those shrieking “muh free market principles” against Trump tilting market regulations and spending policies towards the peasants don’t do a lot of shrieking about how the market is tilted in favor of corporate and wealthy interests: the violation of the Lockean Proviso, differential taxation on labor and capital gains, taxing income instead of wealth, intellectual property.

            “Free markets” are only great when they make the rich richer, and impoverish the poor.

            Trump is a needed corrective to the Right’s bias toward those who own over those who toil.

      2. Calling Trump’s “ideology” a mixture of nationalism and socialism is not the same as calling it akin to Nazi Germany with all of the associated evils of the Holocaust and starting a world war.

        He is very obviously a nationalist, along with his most fervent supporters. And he wants to maintain most of the welfare state, only tinkering at the edges of ObamaCare, and leaving SS and Medicare largely untouched.

        How would you describe such a mixture of positions?

        1. How would you describe such a mixture of positions?

          “Democrat” or “Republican” – take your pick

          1. I don’t think your modern Democrat could be fairly described as a fire-breathing nationalist on the same order of magnitude that Trump is, or his most loyal supporters. In fact, isn’t it a common critique around here that Democrats have been taken over by the “globalist Left” that continually shames America for its past sins, forever and ever?

            And yes Republicans have in the past relied heavily on flag-waving jingoism. But it is only relatively recently that the flag-waving was anything other than a campaign prop to stir up votes. Now it’s a central tenet of Republicanism.

            1. “Everything is magically different or doesn’t count now just so I get to call Trump a Nazi.”

              1. But I’m not calling Trump a Nazi, I explicitly said so, and you are mischaracterizing my argument. Please tell me how my characterizations of Democrats and Republicans are wrong instead of creating a strawman.

                1. Please, you’re throwing qualifiers out and then playing a cheap rhetoric game.

                  You arbitrarily ignore nationalist impulse (or claim it doesn’t count) from the main parties in order to prop up your poor argument. For some reason you’re obsessed with defining Trump as “nationalist and socialist” and refuse to hold anything else to a similar standard. Almost like it’s a garbage smear.

                  1. The Democrats are international socialists, not national socialists.

                    It’s all international socialists vs. national socialists for the next generation or two. Thanks to Trump and his cronies.

                    1. I’d describe both parties as “conservative” national socialists. They each want cautious change in the direction they prefer (without much thought regarding how they expect their dissonant goals to actually work in the long term).

                      Trump is more of a backlash against what others have done than a cause of anything.

                    2. The Democrats are international socialists, not national socialists.

                      So then the difference between a nationalist and an internationalist is about 50,000 refugees. That’s literally it.

                    3. Yep. The only remaining argument is which socialist sucks more.

        2. By this definition the majority of the past century America has been an national socialist nation, and the majority of the West is national socialist. It’s almost like it renders the term meaningless (same thing with describing capitalist market economies like Sweden as ‘socialist’) and it really just a cheap, childish smear.

          1. smears are the new debate form. Thinking, persuasion, and all those things of old are like the rotary phone.

          2. For most of the past century, the West has been moving in a socialist direction at about the same rate as it has been moving in a *less* nationalist direction. It is only recently that BOTH socialist and nationalist tendencies have increased in tandem.

            1. Recently= Past several hundred years of the development of the modern nationstate.

              Yes, bend over backwards to defend said childish smear.

              1. Oh, do tell me about the development of the modern nation state and how “being a people and a culture” is the supreme value which trumps Enlightenment principles like “treat other people as individuals”. Maybe you can link to some articles by Richard Spencer while you’re at it.

                1. Maybe you can link to some articles by Richard Spencer while you’re at it.

                  There you go again, digging yourself deeper into the “everyone else is an alt-right scumbag” hole.

                  1. It’s just everyone who disagrees with him. But collectivism is bad, mkay?

                2. Of course, because you’re competing with John for the ‘idiot mind reader’ award, you make up some moronic strawman about what I must secretly think.

                  Throw more temper tantrums about how anyone who disagrees with you are alt-right Nazis. That’s not completely delusional or anything.

              2. “Recently= Past several hundred years of the development of the modern nationstate”

                Oh come now, the modern welfare state only really got going with Bismarck in 19th century Germany.

                1. It’s almost like I was talking about nationalism.

                  1. Way to shift the goalposts there.

                    This is what you were responding to, John:

                    ” It is only recently that BOTH socialist and nationalist tendencies have increased in tandem.”

                    1. Who’s shifting goalposts? That point is incorrect. The majority of history where socialism and nationalism have festered have increased in tandem. Just because you get some cronyist ‘free trade’ deal doesn’t reverse the general long term trend.

                2. So does Shika or anyone else care to provide any evidence of nationalism pre and post welfare state?

          3. “By this definition the majority of the past century America has been an national socialist nation”

            No, I’d say that America has been becoming more and more socialist, and more and more globalist, up until this current wave of nationalism as exemplified by Brexit, Trump, etc.

            Just to be clear, I don’t think anyone is saying that Trump is a Marxist-Leninist ideologue.

            But he certainly seems to agree with the socialist premises of the welfare state.

            1. Would you describe pre-NAFTA America as national socialist?, If you’re even slightly consistent you have to agree to this premise. But you won’t, because this is just a cheap way of accusing people of fascism while draping yourself in a pseudo-intellectual gloss.

              1. What? NAFTA did not initiate the regime of free trade. Remember GATT? NAFTA only became possible due to the liberalization of trade that had been occurring for decades up to that point. So I disagree with your premise. And yes, before that point, I would call the combination of protective tariffs justified in terms of nationalistic fervor, and the development of the modern welfare state, is an element of national socialism. Was it NAZI GERMANY??? No, I never would claim that it was, and just because Hitler was horrible, doesn’t mean that we can’t ever talk about the mixture of nationalism and socialism ever again.

                1. It wasn’t a matter of initiation, it was a matter of how there was less free trade than post-NAFTA, therefore, by your rather poor definition, America was more national socialist then than afterwards. My point is to show how you render the term utterly meaningless.

                  doesn’t mean that we can’t ever talk about the mixture of nationalism and socialism ever again.

                  Because it’s a brilliant idea to normalize national socialism. And again, throwing around the term socialism to describe the modern market systems is just as idiotic.

                  1. Well, yes. Before NAFTA, America was more nationalist and less globalist as far as international trade was concerned. But it wasn’t this sudden switch that turned nationalism on or off. We had been moving in a more globalist direction and in a more socialist direction, until this wave of nationalism from the past several years, where the country decided to keep the socialism but embrace the nationalism.

                    “My point is to show how you render the term utterly meaningless.”

                    Gee, if only there was some short-hand notation to describe massive government intrusion into the marketplace, justified by patriotic fervor and a desire to “make America great again”….

                    “Because it’s a brilliant idea to normalize national socialism.”

                    I’m not “normalizing” anything. I’m describing what is. The voters have decided that this is what they want. If anything, they are the ones normalizing this current mixture of nationalism and socialism (which, again, is not equivalent to Nazi Germany). You are starting to sound like those Middlebury protestors who take issue with “platforming” certain “forbidden” beliefs.

              2. pre-NAFTA America was less socialist, if one could shart it on a plot it would look something like this.

                pre-NAFTA USA —-> more internationlist —-> post NAFTA USA —> pre-ACA USA —> more socialist —> post ACA USA —> pre-Trump USA —> more nationalist —> post-Trump USA

                So, we got more socialist and more internationalist. And THEN we got way more nationalist, and not any less socialist.

            2. America has been becoming more and more socialist, and more and more globalist, up until this current wave of nationalism as exemplified by Brexit

              And I didn’t even get to vote…damn!

    2. Free Market Libertarian Norm was my nickname in college.

      1. Nooooooorm

    3. return to free market libertarian norms

      Return? Return to when? When was this a ‘norm’?

      1. One of the easiest ways to establish a norm is to pretend it’s always existed. Shut up Sparky. America has always been a libertarian place.

        1. Shaddap and make me a sammich!

          1. I might be needing your services soon.

  4. Austria, Spain, and France ? which have never been super-friendly to immigrants ? are tightening up.

    There are reasons for this outside of welfare.

    1. you can’t mention those reasons to Shikha. Or to a few others around here. See, if you pretend those reasons do not exist, then you don’t have to talk about them.

  5. and here I thought an allegedly libertarian publication – and presumably, those who wrote for it – were against a welfare state regardless of the beneficiaries’ skin color, ethnicity, nation of origin, etc. This might be the day that Shikha achieved peak retard.

    1. I came away with the opposite impression… the last two sentences make it hard to believe she’s pushing welfare for anyone.

      1. Indeed the entire point of the article is that the welfare state has the perverse effect of turning people into nativist assholes.

        1. I think studies have proven this. When you increase welfare, people become anti-immigrant because they do not want to share the free goodies.

        2. Yes, because there were no nationalist based conflicts before the welfare state.

          1. Just because that guy punched you 5 times yesterday doesn’t mean you can’t be mad that he punched you today.

        3. Uh oh, collectivizing again.

      2. She began thusly: The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest.

        When has any liberal program – which, by definition, relies on coercion – been about altruism? And the notion of a massive wealth distribution scheme causing people to “hold hands and sing..kumbaya in brotherhood” is laughable almost beyond measure.

        1. When has any liberal program – which, by definition, relies on coercion – been about altruism?

          Since always.
          You think liberals are going around thinking to themselves “hey let’s coerce some people, for fun!” ?
          And you accuse Dalmia of making strawmen?

          1. The illusion of altruism is not altruism. Liberals like to think they are incredibly altruistic when it comes to spending the money of others, while ignoring that the means by which said money is obtained are far from altruistic.

          2. That was a pretty dimwitted remark

            1. Water is wet. Footage at 10.

          3. You think liberals are going around thinking to themselves “hey let’s coerce some people, for fun!” ?

            Well, “filling my pockets with other people’s money” can be fun.

          4. You think liberals are going around thinking to themselves “hey let’s coerce some people, for fun!” ?

            Nah, only Republican alt-right neo-Nazi national socialist facists have bad intentions. The people who support state violence to achieve their social goals can only be well-intentioned – they told me so!

          5. You think liberals are going around thinking to themselves “hey let’s coerce some people, for fun!” ?

            Yes. Are you a child? Don’t realize that people *like* to exert power over others?

        2. But in turn, I think that definition of any liberal program that you stated relies on perspective. You & I might see it as relying on coercion, but my progressive friends don’t support those ideas for the sake of browbeating others. They see it as part of being a decent human being. The goals of helping the poor are good, even though the ends don’t justify the means.
          And yeah, I think the absurdity of the kumbaya thing was the point. Wealth redistribution is a very lofty and half-baked goal, and I think that was Shikha’s way of poking fun at it. So I think we’re on the same page here.

  6. Social engineering is a beloved hobbyhorse of all Progressives and nearly all politicians of any stripe. Which is a pity, because social engineering is to society as 250 lbs of high explosive is to a crowded theatre. It doesn’t matter what claims are made for it, the results are going to be a godawful mess.

    Every program aimed at nudging people to ‘act right’ makes matters worse. The answer to any politician of any party or persuasion who proposes such should be “get the roads and bridges fixed and the mail delivered expeditiously. Show the government can do those basic tasks, and maybe we can talk later.”

  7. Test 123

    1. Shortest. Ken. Post. Ever.

  8. What is with Dalmia’s rage boner against Canadians lately?

    1. apparently, unless you have totally open borders AND a welfare state that is accessible to all, you’re nativist or racist or whateverist. Then again, Shikha offers this as her thesis statement:

      The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest.

      How you “build” a society by taking from one group to give to another is not explained. But, evidently, suggesting that it’s not a useful approach is bad.

      1. You missed the fact that she’s opposed to the liberal welfare state. One would think the term ‘High minded” might be a cue, but some people have reading comprehension deficits.

        1. Yes, of course, she is. That explains her pathetic opening statement, the equally pathetic close which makes the welfare state sound like a charitable activity, and ties it all together by blaming the people who live in those states for not wanting to have their money given to non-citizens.

          1. ” the equally pathetic close which makes the welfare state sound like a charitable activity”

            TO ITS DEFENDERS, the welfare state is viewed as a “charitable activity”. That doesn’t mean that she (or I) agrees with this characterization. But can we at least fairly characterize the opposing argument instead of erecting strawmen?

          2. What I’m seeing here is some cognitive dissonance among people who are trying to rationalize support for the welfare state without sounding like the squishy liberal, which is not how their tribe identifies itself.
            Most liberals DO think of the welfare state as a charitable activity. They might try to sell it to conservatvies as a necessary evil, but in general they think of it as helping the poor and being nice.

            1. Most liberals DO think of the welfare state as a charitable activity. They might try to sell it to conservatvies as a necessary evil, but in general they think of it as helping the poor and being nice.

              add “thought collector” to the list

              1. You do realize that the words “most” and “in general” have meanings right?

                1. I realize these generalizations are mostly bullshit. Yes

    2. To be fair, we *can* be rather annoying.

      Especially after curling victories.

  9. all your damed studies purposely ignore many of the impacts and they all ignore that the children born here by the illegals become legal yet are burden that we would not have if their parents hadn’t come here in the first place.The studies also ignore the under the table payments which we collect no taxes for. they ignore the cost to hospitals and the number of hospital that had to close down due to over use by illegals. Everyone know if you want open boarders you have to end the welfare state you can’t have both.

    1. wait did ron just call shika out on her ridiculous bullshit?

  10. “Indeed, protecting social programs from foreign moochers has become the biggest rallying cry for restrictionists in Europe, America and even Canada”

    I’ve been arguing that forcing people to pay for each other makes people more picky about the people for whom they’re paying for some 14 years on this site. We’ve seen the principle demonstrated repeatedly over that time period. That Arizona’s massive restrictions came on the heels of the recession, closing schools for lack of tax revenue amid the foreclosure crisis, and in the wake of ObamaCare was no accident. SB1070 was both passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed by the governor shortly after ObamaCare was passed.

    Meanwhile,. EU countries are much less receptive to LEGAL immigration than is generally advertised–and have been that way for a long, long time. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to Europe have been getting all the headlines lately, but that’s a separate issue. Sure, migration between EU countries by EU citizens was made simple by the EU, but outsiders need not apply for legal immigration–unless they can claim to be refugees. Try getting a work visa to the UK sometime.

    1. “I’ve been arguing that forcing people to pay for each other makes people more picky about the people for whom they’re paying for some 14 years on this site.”

      I think this is a fair point. Whenever an onerous sin tax or tax of any kind designed to ‘discourage’ a habit not approved by (insert expert or panel here), it usually follows as a reason that ‘we have to do so or else such persons be a drain on the welfare or health system’. So people will say stupid things like ‘I’m okay with anti-tobacco laws because it’s for the good of people and it’s a financial strain on the health system’ without ever considering the loss of personal/civil liberties. The same kind of logic is used to suppress free speech; except they’re a threat to peace and not public health.

      It’s just eugenics by other means really.

      1. Yeah, people don’t care if it doesn’t seem to effect them directly.

        Christianity seems almost libertarian in some respects. “If you have done so unto the least of these, you have done so unto me” and “do unto others as you would have done unto you” support the libertarian ideal in a roundabout way.

        As a libertarian, I don’t stand up for the Eighth Amendment rights of terrorists. I stand up for my own Eighth Amendment rights if and when the government wants to violate the Eighth Amendment (to go after terrorists).

        Seeing your own stake in how the government treats other people is a very libertarian thing.

      2. Well, that’s hardly a reason to go along with the loss of civil liberties rather than roll back the part about people paying for other people.

        Why does keeping out immigrants generate more energy and enthusiasm than rolling back the welfare state?
        Especially on a libertarian message board?

        If you’re going to say oh well, I guess I concede the welfare state isn’t going anywhere so we might as well keep people from immigrating, then you’re just conceded the same point on tobacco laws and whole number of other things.

        1. Why does keeping out immigrants generate more energy and enthusiasm than rolling back the welfare state?
          Especially on a libertarian message board?

          Because you’re a liar who makes shit up all the time and that’s not actually how it is at all?

          The only people who concede the welfare state at Reason are the writers. Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch in particular have both said they concede the welfare state over and over again.

  11. And so, “protecting social programs from foreign moochers” has been a standard feature of European anti-immigrant rhetoric for decades, but it isn’t the “biggest” rallying cry right now. The current anti-immigrant rhetoric is about terrorism, Islam, sharia, the intolerance of Muslims towards Western liberal values, and the huge discrepancy between the birth rates of Muslim immigrants and native Europeans–meaning that, if present trends continue, European culture will become dominated by Islamic thinking within our lifetimes.

    Whether you agree with that narrative about Islam is irrelevant to the question of whether that’s the biggest rallying cry in Europe against immigrants right now.

  12. Far from making all of humanity hold hands and sweetly sing kumbaya in a newfound brotherhood, welfare statists have ironically produced new fissures and divisions for nativism to prey on.

    Do pro-welfare statists actually believe this, or is it more a way to simply provide resources to the poor in order to active prosperity and, more cynically, prevent communist and/or populist rebellions? I’m unaware of its magical peace making properties. I mean, I can’t believe I’m defending welfare statists, but this reeks of strawman.

    1. *in order to achieve some degree of prosperity

    2. Dalmia criticizes welfare states. Everything Dalmia says must be bad (because she’s in favor of immigration, which is the ultimate evil!). Therefore I must defend welfare statists.

      1. God forbid one actually address the arguments present for welfare states rather than dream up childish strawmen.

        We get it Hazel, you like to hysterically lie and delude yourself in order to attack your opponents. Grow up.

        1. How about addressing the central question of the article “Do welfare states make people more nativist?”

          1. You go on and on about treating people as individuals but then want to analyze them as a collective.

          2. This isn’t just about this one article.

            The other week, she was telling us that enforcing immigration law was like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.

            After a while, you start to lose your audience. Cause and effect, that’s what happens when you do x for so long.

            After a while, yeah, the villagers stop coming when you cry wolf . . . even when there’s a wolf.

            1. Who is the wolf, Ken? Messicans?

              1. Using the courts to convict illegal immigrants of a law that was written by Congress in exercising its duty to set the rules of naturalization in line with its enumerated powers in the Constitution–all the while respecting the illegal immigrant’s Constitutional rights and considering whether they’ll be persecuted if returned to their home country?

                Is not the same as enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

                That’s one example of crying wolf.

                Incidentally, while Congress shouldn’t make any laws that violate anyone’s Constitutional rights, the rules of naturalization are properly subjected to democratic considerations by separating that power and giving it to Congress–exactly like the power to declare war. In other words, in a free, libertarian, small state government, Congress would still rightly be charged with declaring war and setting the rules of naturalization.

                But there is no place for the slavery wolf in a free society.

            2. I can’t even remember the context of that argument, but I don’t think it’s far off the mark.

              Enforcing immigration law universally, would entail the infliction of immoral harms on people who have committed a victimless crime. You’re talking about banishing people who are married to US citizens, separating children from their parents, deporting people to countries they have never known.

              Enforcing immoral laws is immoral.

              1. Slavery has no place in a free society.

                Congress is the proper place for setting immigration policy in a free society.

                Sending people home is not like sending them to slavery–and we take special precautions not to send people back if they face persecution.

                Deportation and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act aren’t even remotely comparable.

                Believing they are is ludicrous. It means you’ve lost all sense of perspective.

                It means you’re a fanatic.

                1. Tearing apart families in order to “enforce the law” is inhumane, in the same way that returning to slavery in inhumane. The difference is one of degree, not of principle.

                  1. Tearing mothers away from their children is inhumane, but if they murder somebody in an armed robbery, that’s what we do anyway–and that’s exactly what we should do.

                    That you don’t see a principled difference between 1) government fulfilling its Constitutional purpose while not violating anyone’s rights and 2) returning people to a state of slavery says everything.

                    What it says isn’t that you don’t have any principles. What it says is that you’ve lost all sense of perspective on this issue. I don’t even think it has anything to do with the issue itself. I think it’s about Trump and your opinion of the white, blue collar people who support him.

                    You’re just railing against the blue collar demons in your head, and, you know, that’s obviously very dangerous from the perspective of someone like me who cares very much about principles and the Constitution.

          3. It’s almost like comments exist to provide criticism of the articles in question.

            But quick, scream about how I’m secretly alt-right because I won’t kowtow to your opinions.

    3. I don’t think anyone actually believes that, I think it was more hyperbole to illustrate the silliness behind the whole concept of welfare. But also, I really don’t think it’s as deep or thought-out as any of the reasons that you provided. My friends who are progressives are genuinely concerned with helping people and prioritize meeting everyone’s “needs” over any other factor that might go into political decision-making, misguided as their methods might be. But yeah, to summarize, I didn’t take it as a strawman in this case, but more as hyperbole.

  13. These are statistics. They have no bias. They’re just numbers. We can argue about the interpretation, but if you’re going to make the case for immigrants to Europe, you need to at least address the following facts:

    The average age in Germany is 46.8 years old.

    The average age in Iraq is 19.9 years old.

    —-CIA World Fact Book, 2016

    http://tinyurl.com/oyqb6dw

    The birth rate in Germany is 8.5 per thousand.

    The birth rate in Iraq is 30.9 per thousand.

    —-CIA World Fact Book, 2016

    http://tinyurl.com/yo4442

    You want to put some interpretations on that? Feel free, but address the statistics, for goodness’ sake or you’ll lose the audience you’re trying to address.

    1. Here is my interpretation. Germany needs immigrants to keep their welfare state going.

      1. My partial interpretation is that, cross culturally, birth rates and average age are a function of two things: infant mortality and women participating in making money outside the home.

        In places where there is no social security and not much wealth, children provide for their aged parents, and so having surviving children is extremely important. If you only have two children and one of them dies as an infant, you will suffer economically (especially if it’s a boy).

        Cross culturally, the other thing that impacts birth rate is when women are educated and can contribute to the household income, people choose to have fewer babies so the mother can work. This isn’t just in the developing world–the reason countries even European Catholic countries like Italy, Spain, et. al .have such high average ages and such low birth rates is largely attributable to the employment opportunities for women emerging over the last 40 years.

      2. While it’s true that Muslim immigrants to Europe are likely to become more like Europeans in regards to infant mortality over subsequent generations, it could also true that Europe will become more like Muslims on the issue of women working outside of the home–as the Muslim birth rate now and the graying of Europe leads Muslims to predominate demographically.

        Furthermore, Europe’s inability to integrate Muslims in the past doesn’t lend itself well to the Muslim immigrants of the future becoming more like Europeans in regards to the cultural roles of women.

        Talking about welfare states, socialism, and immigration, at this point, seems to be a diversionary tactic. If those things were on point, we’d talk more about what capitalism, deregulation, and economic growth do to increase the number of economic opportunities for women.

        1. leads Muslims to predominate demographically

          Countries are the way they are because of the people who live in them.
          Iraq is like Iraq because of Iraqis.
          Germany is like Germany because of Germans.

          The more Iraqis you put in Germany, the more it will be like Iraq.

          Same thing with the United States and Mexico. The more Mexicans cross the border, the more the US becomes like Mexico.

  14. None of this is meant as a criticism.

    Oh

  15. So… we can’t have nice things because cynical assholes might use those nice things in a fallacious appeal to bigotry. Got it!

  16. The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan.

    The goal of the welfare state is to engender the New Soviet Man?

    But the opposite has happened: Protecting the welfare state from foreign moochers has become the single biggest stimulus for nativism in the West

    Which was predicted.

    All one needed to do was look to Europe. These sentiments were popular in European Welfare states LOOOOONG before Trump was a household name.

    It’s human fucking nature. If you take stuff from people at the point of a gun and redistribute it to others, those people will want to narrow the redistribution as much as possible.

    1. And it’s happened before. This is history repeating itself.

    2. All one needed to do was look to Europe.

      One could have looked at the cradles of civilization: the Middle East, India, and China. But one would have to go back many more centuries. And one might have to read religious texts. Cosmotarians are above that sort of thing.

  17. Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too

    Literally every study I like shows meaningless thing.

  18. Geert Wilders ? the Dutch Donald Trump

    I’m going to need a definition here.

    1. He is Hitler, duh!

  19. Just out of curiosity –

    i don’t read SD pieces on principle; is the idea here that “opposed to illegal immigration” = Nativist?

    Because that seems rather strange to me. I’m a pretty open-borders* and think the country benefits from more immigration rather than less…

    (*for economic reasons, not really libertarian ones, because i don’t think ‘free movement of labor’ by definition necessitates complete abandonment of sovereign border control)

    ….but i also think that if you’re going to have immigration, that you’re best off taking people who already observe the rule-of-law in the first place and attempt to migrate legally.

    Basically, I don’t see what’s at all ‘nativist’ about preferring legal immigration, and implementing policy which encourages legal immigration and dis-incentivizes illegal immigration.

    Yes, i know stats are probably being waved around pretending that distinctions between legal/illegal immigrants don’t matter, and that anyone who objects to the latter must also object to the former. But seriously – does sneering “nativist~!” at anyone who thinks illegal immigration is undesirable really even make any sense?

    1. According to the article, European opposition to immigration apparently doesn’t have anything to do with Muslims, refugees, crime, or terrorism.

      Or, I should say, these issues are extremely conspicuous by way of omission. They aren’t even mentioned in the article.

      How do you talk about the true character of anti-immigration rhetoric in Europe right now and not talk about immigration? I don’t know.

      It seems diversionary to me.

      Europe has largely been a welfare state for a long, long time, and that has made them opposed to legal immigration (except by way asylum) for a long, long time.

      There’s a 600 lbs. gorilla in the room. You’d think it might get some attention.

      1. Europe has largely been a welfare state for a long, long time, and that has made them opposed to legal immigration(except by way asylum) for a long, long time.

        I’m not sure that’s exactly right.

        the formation of the EU itself created an open-labor-marketplace in 2004 which resulted in large amounts of intra-european migration, and – despite some griping in northern UK about polish taking most of the manual labor gigs – that didn’t provoke any particular political opposition like the type you see in Brexit.

        meaning, most of Europe seemed OK with uncontrolled intra-european ‘legal immigration’ before 2014, contra your ‘long long time’ assertion.

        and i still don’t see how any of this makes anyone “Nativist”. Its hard to fault, say, Brits for nativism when they welcomed huge numbers of commonwealth and EU citizens over decades, and only decided they’d had enough when there were refugee camps overflowing just across the channel.

        iow, the issue doesn’t seem to be ‘nativism’ at all, so much as rejection of the idea that they don’t have a right to exert any border-controls at all.

        1. The current wave of nativism in Europe is obviously caused by Angela Merkel’s ill-considered decision to invite Syrian refugees en masse into the EU.

          That said, America’s immigration problems are totally different from Europes. We’re not getting Muslims, we’re getting Spanish-speaking Catholics.

          1. The difference is only because we don’t require a floor mopping license like they do in Germany. Yet.

            Enough unskilled immigrants in this country can still get low-paying work. Unskilled immigrants into Europe are basically not allowed to work.

            Europe’s nativism is more than just because of Muslims. For example, British plumbers are pissed that Polish plumbers can work in Britain. It’s less to do with them being Polish as it has to do with importing skilled labor to drive skilled wages down at the same time the welfare state one has lived in all their lives keeps raising taxes, regulations, and other wealth-stealing activities. The Polish plumber migrates to Britain and sees a (temporary) tax reprieve because the welfare state in his home country is just in a further state of collapse than his new country’s state of collapse. But his very act of immigration has increased the collapse of his destination country.

        2. I addressed that above.

          It’s true that the EU lets people from within the EU migration easily.

          But outsiders need not apply.

          I know an American who wanted to go to London to open up a new office and create 150 high paid jobs. Getting the work visa to go there for one year was incredible onerous.

          For a long time in Germany (with odd exceptions like being a college professor), you couldn’t become a citizen unless you were already a citizen or your grandfather was a citizen. Up until recently, there were generations of Turks in Germany whose grandparents had come legally on work permits, whose parents had been born there–but they still weren’t eligible for citizenship.

          1. that can all be true but still doesn’t really address the claim of “nativism”, which seems undermined by the idea that Europeans willingly dropped their national boundaries in quite a dramatic way, at least to fellow-members.

            1. The anti-immigration people this article is about aren’t necessarily happy about those borders being dropped.

              A lot of taxpayers in Germany aren’t happy about the EU letting Greece in, either.

              And many of the EU countries we’re talking about have similar welfare states. If someone from France moves to the UK, it may not be for the social program benefits if those are more or less the same everywhere west of the Rhine.

        3. The perception that Europe is liberal in regards to legal immigration is largely a myth. The Algerians who came to France came in the aftermath of the Algerian war–but then Algeria had been part of France like Hawaii is part of the United States. The other immigrants came from French colonies elsewhere–like Jamaicans, Indians, and Pakistanis went to the UK.

          I suspect it’s easier for an average EU citizen to immigrate to the U.S. than it is for an average American to immigrate to most EU countries (sans getting married).

          European perceptions that Americans are anti-immigrant are largely fed by the perception that we’re stupid and racist. I doubt Europeans would have tolerated the level of illegal immigration we’ve experienced from Mexico over the last few decades, and I think their socialism contributes to that intolerance.

    2. “But seriously – does sneering “nativist~!” at anyone who thinks illegal immigration is undesirable really even make any sense?”

      Speaking only for myself, I can easily see, from a restrictionist point of view, why wanting secure borders for the purposes of enforcing the law is a good idea.

      But what I cannot understand, at least from a rational point of view, is the *undue emphasis* that is placed on illegal immigration among the menu of policy priorities.

      We are talking about a crime that is equivalent to trespassing as far as the NAP is concerned. I agree that trespassing ought to be punished. What I don’t agree with is placing prosecution of trespassing as the nation’s most pressing concern.

      So, at least as far as I’m concerned, it’s this seemingly irrational emphasis on illegal immigration that sparks the thoughts of a deeper sub-rational justification on the part of *certain* restrictionists for why they really want to kick out the illegals.

      1. what I cannot understand, at least from a rational point of view, is the *undue emphasis* that is placed on illegal immigration

        what in your view is the “due emphasis”? e.g. How many million illegal immigrants would it take before you think it was something the merited people’s attention?

        What I don’t agree with is placing prosecution of trespassing as the nation’s most pressing concern.

        i think that’s a bit of a straw man that is reversing the actual rhetorical positions.

        its actually the people asserting that there’s no substantive difference between illegal and legal immigration who are the ones taking an extreme outlier POV, and handwaving aside concerns for rule-of-law as “bigotry”.

        People asserting the opposite – that we need to enforce the immigration laws already on the books – are the ones being cast as the irrational, nativist-bigots.

        1. You may not be aware of this but the total illegal immigrant population leveled off at 11 million almost a decade ago. We’re simply not being “invaded” by hordes of illegals coming over the border.

          http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..n-the-u-s/

          1. We’re simply not being “invaded” by hordes of illegals coming over the border.

            No one ever suggested we were.

            Your point doesn’t actually address anything i said

          2. You may not be aware of this but the total illegal immigrant population leveled off at 11 million almost a decade ago.

            Michael Hihn doesn’t repeat his point about 91% of libertarians rejecting the label as often as you repeat this levelling off stat.

      2. Well stated.

        As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the total illegal immigrant population leveled off around 8 years ago.
        Today, the vast majority of “illegals” are long-term residents, the majority of which are married to US citizens, have US citizen children, or are childhood arrivals who have grown up in America.

        The hysteria that Trump and his supporters have whipped up over illegal immigration does not bear a relationship to the reality. There are not hordes of illegal immigrant criminals and “rapists”. They are being used as a scapegoat for the declining economic prospects of working class whites.

        1. When we see 18 year olds placed in 9th grade classes — rest assured, we ain’t getting the best and brightest.

        2. Today, the vast majority of “illegals” are long-term residents, the majority of which are married to US citizens, have US citizen children, or are childhood arrivals who have grown up in America.

          Again, that has nothing to do with my point about about the fact that objecting to illegal immigration while welcoming legal immigration isn’t the slightest bit “Nativist” by any stretch of the imagination.

          Just because you think illegal immigrants are wunderbar doesn’t mean there still isn’t a huge and widespread breakdown in the rule of law.

          1. Current immigration law is inhumane in certain respects. Very specifically, there is a law that forbids people from applying for legal status if they have been in the country illegally, even if they now meet the legal requirements to apply. Applicants must return to their home countries for up to 10 years before they can apply, and may be denied reentry. When someone is married to an American citizen or has US citizen children, this would entail breaking up the family for a long period of time. That is inhumane.
            Secondly, currently immigration law simply does not provide any legal path to immigration for the vast majority of people who are coming here illegally. They aren’t just choosing not to follow the legal path out of convenience, but because there IS NO legal path.

            1. Current immigration law is inhumane in certain respects.

              If that’s true, then change the law.

              Instead people argue that we must ignore widespread violations.

              there IS NO legal path.

              demonstrably false. an absurd claim.


              Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants.

              Of the 21 million naturalized citizens, 22 percent naturalized since 2010, 33 percent between 2000 and 2009, and 45 percent prior to 2000.

              1. If that’s true, then change the law.

                That’s rather difficult when anti-immigrationists start screaming “Amnesty” every time you bring it up. And repeat ad nauseum any number of falsehoods about illegal immigrants being welfare cases, criminals, rapists, etc.

                And you misread my statement there is no legal path *for the people who are coming here as illegal aliens*. There are specific classes of people who cannot immigrate – low-skilled laborers without direct family relationships to US residents – because the law requires employers to first prove that no American can do a job before they offer it to an immigrant.

                1. That’s rather difficult when anti-immigrationists start screaming “Amnesty” every time you bring it up

                  poor baby. this is simply excuse-making for the fact that demands to accommodate millions of illegal immigrants at other’s expense is politically unpopular.

                  “its so hard to convince people of my badly argued ideas while i’m screeching about how racist they all are”

                  There are specific classes of people who cannot immigrate

                  again = nonsense. they certainly can and do. you complaint is only that it is *harder* for a non-skilled laborer to immigrate. If you want to change the law to make it easier, feel free = but you’d actually have to convince people that was a good idea for everyone concerned, which i doubt you can.

                  I still fail to see how someone like me, who welcomes the million+ legal immigrants we take in every year is somehow “nativist” or otherwise advocating any ‘restrictionist’ policy, by simply saying that illegal immigration should be discouraged.

                  Your attitude seems to be that there is no point to enforcing the laws and you lack the willpower and/or arguments which would convince people to change the laws.

                  1. poor baby. this is simply excuse-making for the fact that demands to accommodate millions of illegal immigrants at other’s expense is politically unpopular.

                    The idea that it would be at other people’s expense is a LIE. Immigration law already forbids immigrants from recieving welfare, and the sponsor has to certify that they won’t become a public charge by showing the ability to support the sponsored person for at least five years.

                    you complaint is only that it is *harder* for a non-skilled laborer to immigrate. If you want to change the law to make it easier, feel free = but you’d actually have to convince people that was a good idea for everyone concerned

                    Well, it’s a good idea for the employer and the person he or she wishes to hire, which is a voluntary contract.
                    Why does some other guy get a say in who employers offer jobs to? Why does anyone else have a right to decide what happens in a private transaction between two individuals?

                    1. The idea that it would be at other people’s expense is a LIE.

                      Its certainly disadvantaging those who went through the efforts of following the law.

                      . Immigration law already forbids immigrants from recieving welfare

                      you mean “illegal immigrants?” Weird how you assert that those who already have broken one set of laws are apparently diligently observing all the others. And i’m not sure that’s actually true.

                      None of this addresses the point i raised in the very beginning: which is that it seems to me that there is absolutely nothing “Nativist” about welcoming illegal immigrants but endorsing policy discouraging illegal immigrants.

                      You have waved around lots of irrelevant numbers, and made rhetorical appeals about disadvantages for ‘certain classes’ of illegal immigrants, but never actually addressed the basic point.

                      I think there are legitimate economic arguments for relatively high-levels of immigration and i made that clear in the beginning; however i continue to think it rhetorically dishonest to pretend that anyone who thinks widespread illegal immigration is a problem is therefore “Nativist”

                    2. correction =

                      welcoming illegal immigrants but endorsing policy discouraging illegal immigrants.

                    3. The people who are raging about illegal immigration aren’t doing anything to fix or change the legal immigration system, and when pressed will frequently fall back on generally anti-immigrationist positions (cultural integrity etc). They are almost always grotesquely uninformed or dishonest about current immigration law, which makes me think they either don’t care and/or are hiding their real opinions about legal immigration.
                      Besides it’s an intellectually dishonest position to hold anyway, equivalent to insisting that you aren’t against cannibis legalization, you just support the war on drugs because “the law is the law”.
                      Get real. People make those sorts of arguments because they can’t make the moral argument for the law itself with a straight face.

                2. the law requires employers to first prove that no American can do a job before they offer it to an immigrant.

                  No, it doesn’t. You know literally nothing about the law and every time you try to cite something it is egregiously incorrect. Labor certification requirements are to a much lower standard The INA directs the Secretary of Labor to certify that there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available and the employment of an alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. . And in practice, because of a lack of available data and investigative resources, businesses are held to the honor system in certifying their compliance with labor certification and wage rules.

            2. Secondly, currently immigration law simply does not provide any legal path to immigration for the vast majority of people who are coming here illegally. They aren’t just choosing not to follow the legal path out of convenience, but because there IS NO legal path.

              This is somewhere between stealing a base and a bald-faced lie. The fact that we have legal immigrants demonstrates that we, in fact, have a legal path. It may be exceedingly selective or onerous, but it exists and lots of immigrants use it.

              The very problem with saying that it leveled off 8 yrs. ago and grandfathering everyone in is because explicit policy decisions led to a plateau in which we grandfathered everyone in and then a subsequent boom which produced the current boondoggle.

              You’re selectively describing one set of values or actions as collectivism that should be opposed and the other as individualism that should be supported and then, when the tables are turned deriding individualism as racist or nativist. If Russian sent over 10 million immigrants, even with a bias towards legal channels, with the explicit intent of spoiling the election, are we obligated because of individual rights to let them all in or make special considerations for them once the number plateaus at 10M?

              1. It’s not a lie. There are certain class of people who have no viable legal path to immigrate. there are a limit number of ways to immigrate. Mostly you either get sponsored by a family member, or you get sponsored by an employer. Both have annual numerical limits.

                if you don’t have a direct US relative, employment sponsorship is pretty much the only option. (Leaving out Asylum seekers and refugees, which won’t work if you aren’t from a war torn country or an oppressive totalitarian state).

                In order to get an employment sponsorship the employer has to prove to the Department of Labor, that he couldn’t have hired an American. This is effectively impossible to get unless the immigrant has at least a bachelor’s degree and is working in a professional field.

                1. In order to get an employment sponsorship the employer has to prove to the Department of Labor, that he couldn’t have hired an American.

                  This is a lie. The actual standard is referenced above.

                  This is effectively impossible to get unless the immigrant has at least a bachelor’s degree and is working in a professional field.

                  I guess you’ve never heard of the H-2A and H-2B programs, which are designed to provide work visas to unskilled agricultural and non-agricultural workers, respectively. Unsurprising since literally every single thing you have ever reference with regard to immigration law is wrong.

            3. Hazel, banks don’t often accept employees who embezzled.

              As far as being forced to leave the US for 10 years…unsure how “it will impact a criminal negatively” is a justification to ignore the law. The spouse could always go with them. Their kids could go with them. Going back to the opening analogy, if an embezzler stole tens of millions and used it to support his family, they would not be permitted to keep the money even though it will hurt the family.

              And, sorry, “I broke the law and now cannot do what I want” is a horrendous justification for FURTHER breaking the law.

        3. Today, the vast majority of “illegals” are long-term residents, the majority of which are married to US citizens

          If they were married to US citizens they would be eligible for permanent resident status. As usual, you don’t have even the slightest inkling of what you are talking about.

      3. But what I cannot understand, at least from a rational point of view, is the *undue emphasis* that is placed on illegal immigration among the menu of policy priorities.

        The US was nearly over. I thought it was inevitable until Trump came along.

        The Left would keep importing Big Government voters until they had a permanent and unassailable electoral majority for President, thereby the federal courts, thereby the federal bureaucracy.

        Liberty is a minority viewpoint in the world, with it most strongly defended here. Immigrants from most any country makes the US less free.

        Countries are the way they are because of the people who live in them. Import Mexicans, you become more like Mexico.

  20. this Land of Immigrants

    I’d ask Shikha to which Land Of Immigrants she is referring but the fucked up capitalization combined with the self-defeating use of a proper noun makes me think that her answer won’t be much less retarded than her original assertion.

  21. Why stop at giving welfare to non-citizens within the country? Can we just send my tax dollars directly to everyone in the world? I don’t really see the difference, but then I’m more open minded and tolerant than most

    1. Better than spending money building weapons to kill them with, which was the pre-welfare state order of things.

      1. This point does not get made often enough. I would rather that the stolen money go to welfare than warfare, if it’s gonna be stolen anyway.

        Furthermore, I see defense spending as another type of welfare, split between corporate welfare to defense contractors and a jobs program for poor midwesterners.

        1. and a jobs program for poor midwesterners.

          I’m sure the 25% of the military that identifies as minority are all from the midwest:

          http://download.militaryonesou…..Report.pdf

    2. Can we just send my tax dollars directly to everyone in the world?

      We already do that. Some get more than others, of course.

  22. Great news – ” fewer immigrants (and their children?) use welfare”

    So, let us stop advertising Food Stamps in foreign languages, right? No need for that.

    And we can ignore Fozia S. Dualeh, her eight children, and her husband, Abdikhadar Y. Ismail, and their $118K in welfare fraud in 1? years, because . . . their story doesn’t fit the agenda? They are just visiting from Somalia?

    And never mind the billions in welfare fraud committed by Armenians, Nigerians, Russians, . . . because their taxes outweigh their costs? [Look up HHS OIG Most Wanted]

  23. I guess not being able to afford the welfare net isn’t an issue.

    And are we actually seeing a “libertarian writer” coming out in DEFENSE of welfare?

  24. Shikha brings back the comments(with an assist from Hazel)

  25. What I’ll never get is that the pro no borders crowd simultaneously seem to believe:

    1) It is not vital to concern oneself with protection of one’s cultural identity since the influx of new people won’t harm it

    and

    2) it is wrong to expect the new arrivals to adapt and accept the new culture and that it is fine if they maintain their old cultural practices.

    Do they not see an inherent contradiction in a premise that requires the “natives” to change and the new arrivals to not?

    1. What I’ll never get is that the pro no borders crowd simultaneously seem to believe:

      1) There have never been any strictly logistical or scientific/physical migration crises ever. Large numbers of people getting up and going somewhere else entirely of their own volition has never adversely affected the endogenous land and peoples of wherever and has always been strictly advantageous to everyone always.

      2) Peoples ideas/ideologies are, in no way, tied to the logistics or scientific/physical state of their surroundings. Especially not in unforeseeable ways and especially not in ways that your opponents or just even just mostly-apathetic useful idiots could exploit.

      1. 1) There have never been any strictly logistical or scientific/physical migration crises ever. Large numbers of people getting up and going somewhere else entirely of their own volition has never adversely affected the endogenous land and peoples of wherever and has always been strictly advantageous to everyone always.

        Tell that to the American Indians and the Palestinians.

        1. This motherfucker has never studied the history of Europe. Every schoolkid in Europe knows about the Migration Period.

      2. 1) There have never been any strictly logistical or scientific/physical migration crises ever. Large numbers of people getting up and going somewhere else entirely of their own volition has never adversely affected the endogenous land and peoples of wherever and has always been strictly advantageous to everyone always.

        It has. Multiple times over all throughout history. Europeans arriving here did not see much need to adapt to the Native culture (the opposite happened). It didn’t work out well for them.

        The current nonsense is less violent than in the past, but to pretend that even modern European society hasn’t been changed due to the influx of “refugees” is to ignore simple reality.

        2) Peoples ideas/ideologies are, in no way, tied to the logistics or scientific/physical state of their surroundings. Especially not in unforeseeable ways and especially not in ways that your opponents or just even just mostly-apathetic useful idiots could exploit.

        Thoroughly balkanized societies don’t have a solid track record of being stable.

      3. See: The Balkans. I win.

    2. Who said the natives have to change?
      What is it about living next to someone who is different that forces you to become different?
      Why must one force the other to conform to anything?

      1. Who said the natives have to change?
        What is it about living next to someone who is different that forces you to become different?
        Why must one force the other to conform to anything?

        The newcomers either assimilate into the culture or they force the culture to assimilate to them. There isn’t a third way. Having more and more people who think the government supplying everything is a great idea insures that the government only grows more and more with no chance to restrict anything.

        Look at how the emigration from CA changed the political culture of other states. Look at what happened to NH thanks to MA residents moving and voting for the same terrible policies.

        You either join the culture or you conquer it.

        1. The newcomers either assimilate into the culture or they force the culture to assimilate to them. There isn’t a third way. …
          You either join the culture or you conquer it.

          Sorry, but I continue to think that people from different cultures can live peacefully side by side without killing eachother.

          We DON’T all have to blend together into a giant oneness. We’re all individuals. We can treat one another as individuals. We’ve been learning to do it for hundreds of years, setbacks notwithstanding.
          The concepts of Western enlightenment, pluralism, individualism, religious liberty, freedom of speech, emerged out of centuries of religious and ethnic warfare. Maybe our tribal identities are strong, but we overcame them once, and we will do it again. Because it is the only real option.

          1. It’s a lovely sentiment. History and reality, however, do not indicate that your hopes are likely to occur.

            Western enlightenment works great until somebody who thoroughly despises it uses it against it.

            How well has the support for open inquiry worked on college as faculty and students became more opposed to it?

          2. Sorry, but I continue to think that people from different cultures can live peacefully side by side without killing eachother.

            You also continue to build strawmen utterly unrelated to the posts to which you reply. No one needs to kill each other in other for one to be more culturally dominant than the other. For instance, it’s very difficult to do business in a neighborhood where your language is not spoken. It’s difficult to worship when there are no representatives of your religion.

            You are so wholly ignorant of history (as with nearly every other subject). There has never been a time during or after the Enlightenment when there was not racial or ethnic strife. Plurality is not a utopian fantasy where everyone gets along. It more often means that people who hate each other just avoid each other. The very people who ushered in the Enlightenment and constructed the American pluralistic ideal shunned the Quakers, the Jews and the Germans when America was still a wee confederation of 13 coastal states.

            Here’s a good way to think about it: imagine if a white man who voted for Trump moved into your neighborhood and how that would make your tiny little brain feel.

          3. Sorry, but I continue to think that people from different cultures can live peacefully side by side without killing eachother.

            Cultures differ on when they sanction the use of force.

            Are you fine with living next to a neighbor with 3 child brides who he rapes and beats?
            He calls it “marriage”. So did everyone in his village back in the old country.

            Ready to watch him kill his daughter for dishonoring the family? Want to watch as he throws his gay son off a cliff?

  26. “The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan.”
    Or; the central project of the liberal welfare state is to control each and every aspect of citizens lives, from what they buy to where they are allowed to buy it. (step 1 = health insurance / healthcare)

    And yet another deliberate blending of immigration policy with criminal border crossing in order to make a rational discourse on illegals more difficult. Newspeak was always the terrifying thing about 1984.

  27. “One of President Trump’s leaked executive order drafts contemplated not only barring immigrants likely to use public assistance, but deporting those who do, perhaps even if no fraud is involved.”

    Why is it a bad thing to reject immigrants likely to use public assistance or deport those who do? It is the open boarders inability to see why that is actually reasonable that drives people right into The Donald’s arms.

  28. The problem with welfare in general is that usually first time recipients are grateful for the much needed help. Then second generation recipients begin to think they are entitled to these handout. By the third generation they not only feel entitled to the handouts but they now think they are somehow entitled to what the working class has. By the fourth generation there is a smoldering hatred for the have and instead of looking for an education or job they spend their time looking for all the reasons that the haves are screwing them

    1. I think it’s a little more complex than that. The problem is that people who grow up in neighborhoods and families where everyone (or nearly everyone) is on the dole are ultimately deprived of the life skills they need to be able to hold a job. They aren’t encouraged to graduate high school (why bother, you don’t need school to get the check), and nobody they know has a job so they don’t understand things like showing up on time, not stealing from the till, not being drunk/high at work, obeying directions, etc. The smoldering hatred is because they start to realize this – that the system has systematically disenfranchised them by excluding them from even “working class” culture, by depriving them of the most rudimentary skills they need to hold down a job.

      Incidentally, most immigrants don’t come from cultures where they can live on welfare, so this is really more of a problem for US born people of all racial/ethnic backgrounds. By “third generation” you might as well drop the distinction. There was a post on Marginal Revolution about these recently, that people in third world countries are actually radically more entrepreneurial than the American poor. Nearly everyone is self-employed in some way. They’re all running tiny small businesses trying to make ends meet.

      1. Your entire post justifies a harsher immigration policy.

        It’s CRUEL to bring them here and make them lazy.

        1. @damikesc exactly –the reason they are more entreprenurial in the third world is because they have a big incentive to be. Come to America, realize you no longer have to work in order to have a significantly better lifestyle that the one you came from, why not live on Welfare? Some cultures have social pressures against making government dependance a permanant lifestyle and some don’t. The ones that don’t tend to get off of it eventually but, you know the old, old saying shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves…… By the time their grandkids are going to college at Socialist U and voting for Bernie Sanders, we’re right back where we stared!

      2. Incidentally, most immigrants don’t come from cultures where they can live on welfare

        Actually they do.

        The top five countries of birth for new LPRs in 2015 were Mexico (15 percent), China (7 percent), India (6 percent), and the Philippines and Cuba (5 percent each).

        All social democracies with robust welfare states.

        You’d think with as many statistics as you make up out of thin air you’d eventually get one right just by accident. But nope.

  29. “Ruthlessly tips its entry standards toward the young and healthy.” Wow. The nerve of them wanting young, productive, healthy people.

  30. The big news for Reason is that welfare increases self-interest–irrational self-interest–across the board. It always has done.

    When the state provides, private provision declines. Bad money drives out good. Attitudes harden. Single mothers, the disabled and the unfortunate cease to be regarded as objects of genuine sympathy and are viewed as wards of the state, a class apart, and worthy of derision because they are beholding to society at large.

    Welfare creates division, it doesn’t heal it or assuage it. That’s the failure of welfare, not the self-serving supposedly-racist angle that Reason now trots out ad nauseam at every opportunity to support its immigration stance.

  31. What a ferocious array of spite you project onto the world outside your borders!

  32. The immigrants-don’t-use-welfare argument above is a straw man. It’s immaterial to the immigration debate.

    Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. That’s the damning statistic. The more immigrants, the more Democratic policies come into effect.

    Now you can say what you like about the horrible record of the GOP–and it is horrible–but I don’t see any Democrat members of Congress demanding huge tax cuts, or freeing up the health care market, or Democrat presidential possibles talking about slashing EPA, etc. budgets. All we hear from them is more, more, more.

    And that’s what immigrants vote for. That’s what this article’s writer and Reason is trying to conceal behind the immigrant welfare recipient numbers.

    1. Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. That’s the damning statistic.

      That’s the bigger deal to me too.

      Immigrants overwhelmingly in favor of bigger government, compared to natives.

      Liberty is a minority viewpoint in world. The US has more of it than most all countries. Import people from other countries, you get less commitment to freedom.

      Reason like the blank out that fact, because Open Borders Uber Alles.

  33. Comrade Dalmia has now broken her libertarian cover and officially gone full socialist, can the rest of Reason’s contributors be far behind? Yes, let’s have open borders and let everyone in the world come to north america and go on welfare, we can pay more taxes, can’t we?

    1. If anything, Dalmia was late to the party.

      I will never forgive Ron Bailey for advancing within this magazine a police of mandatory health insurance. And I will never forgive Gillespie for not firing him on the spot. Nor will I ever forgive the Koch Brothers for allowing this shit to fester.

      With free market libertarian friends like this, who needs socialist enemies?

      1. Libertarianism is just statism with faux-minarchist branding

  34. this writer is wrongly referring to illegal aliens as immigrants!!

    i would rather be known as a Nationalist than an OPEN BORDERS ANARCHIST!!

  35. There is no sure way to determine how much illegal aliens pay into the system and how much of a drain they are on the system. FAIR, Shikha and everyone else is relying on estimates.

    A 2007 CBO report estimated that undocumented aliens in states like CA only take up 5% of the state budget, but they ultimately take in more than what they pay in taxes. Which is intuitive. You can add up all the sales tax and state and local tax by immigrants and come up with a tax contribution that appears generous, yet healthcare and education alone would largely offset their contribution.

    This isn’t all that different from the ACA insurance pool. If you loosen the borders, most incoming immigrants will be poor Latinos, half of them without a college or even high school degree. We’ll spend billions of dollars to prop them out and get billions in tax dollars which are built in payroll and cost of living. The net contribution from immigrants is almost certainly a drop in the bucket compared to how much is spent in this country.

    I’m not under any illusions that there aren’t illegals taking welfare and being counted as “natives”. You can get SS number when you only have a green card, and at that point you can get…. creative. But even if they don’t get welfare, the entitlement scheme in this country ensures that states like CA will be in deep dino $hit if they keep taking on millions of more immigrants.

  36. Why exactly is Libertarian magazine lamenting over distortions in Liberal Welfare system ?

  37. You cannot have open borders in a welfare state. A Canadian tried to propose that new commers get a pension right away, she got shut down quicker than a pot dispensary. The government owns approx. 2/3 of the Candian economy, it will not pay more than it has to.
    Is Shikha finally figuring out the Canadian Liberal party PR decades long campaign of “we pretend to care using other people’s money?” The massive influx of “Syrians et al” was window dressing for Trudeau to get a UN council seat. Canada will have massive problems to come within the next 3-7 years, and Canada will clutch and grab like drowning victims for their government benefits as it sinks.

  38. The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan.

    Holy fuck.

    “create a new kind of person”

    You, citizen, are just the malleable clay of state experts.

    That opening paragraph reads like something out of a dystopian novel.

  39. : Protecting the welfare state from foreign moochers

    Sounds like a fantastic goal to me. Only thing better would be ending the welfare state completely.

  40. Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too

    The foreign uneducated use less welfare than our native uneducated!

    Yahoo! Give me 50 million more!
    We can never have too many people with 6th grade educations on welfare!

    This is the kind of bullshit that sickens me with Reason’s Open Borders Uber Alles propaganda. It’s making them dishonest hacks. And encouraging them to bring in dishonest hacks.

    If you want to be the Welfare State to the World, because you’re an anarchist who thinks Borders are Evil, buck up and say so. If you’re willing to make US citizens less free to preserve the freedom of foreigners to move here and vote for Big Government, fess up.

    Those are at least honest positions to have.

    But stop with the dishonest propaganda. “Similarly situated”. Guess what? We don’t want more poor and uneducated people. We’ve got plenty already.

  41. just as Gerald implied I am in shock that a person able to earn $7711 in 1 month on the computer . go now>>>>>>>>>>> https://qr.net/eyGRuC

  42. “Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too, including for low-skilled immigrants (many of whom are undocumented).”

    Oh really? Because I’ve seen several credible studies stating the opposite. I suppose it all breaks down to how you want to spin the numbers. Don’t forget there are pleanty of higher earning legal immigrants who would like to see welfare and sympathy for illegal immigration end too, because yes, it does drive “natvism” and give people the mistaken impression that all immigrants are sitting around wasting tax dollars. The people wasting our tax dollars are in govemnment though, you can hardly blame people from poor countries who are happy to come here and take advantage of it (and they are whether or not they had good intentions about working). We ought to get out of the welfare business now before it completely collapses and everyone blames immigrants even more instead of the people they’ve been voting for over the last few deccades.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.