Immigration

It's Official: Republicans Hate Immigrants More Than Government Spending

And they don't care about limited government either.

|

In the Age of Trump, Republicans have taken to hating immigrants more than government spending. Or, for that matter, loving the market economy that

Border Wall
karenklipo via Foter.com

they've to date insisted Made America Great Once. And if you doubt that read my column in The Week this morning about the latest antics of Congressman Mark Meadows—the head of the Freedom Caucus—and Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a rising star in the GOP.

Meadows recently threatened to shut down the government again in fall if the new spending bill did not set aside enough money to build the Great Wall of Trump. The Caucus is an ideologically diverse group that is united by a commitment to cut government spending. Meadows has tried to hijack that commitment in the past to advance his other agenda like when he colluded to depose John Boehner as Speaker of the House for his failure to strip federal aid to Planned Parenthood from the 2015 government-funding bill.

But using his perch to cut funds from projects he dislikes is one thing. To use it to actually demand more funding for his pet projects eviscerates the whole purpose for the existence of the Freedom Caucus. Especially, when that project is wasteful and futile and will breed the very problem it is trying to solve.

Meanwhile, Cotton is cottoning on to the RAISE Act that seeks to slash legal immigration by half by 2027 on the theory that reducing the pool of foreign workers will make the American worker rich again—not the free market, competition or the "Protestant work ethic," just naked protectionism.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: California Doubles Down on Subsidizing Wealthy Buyers of Electric Cars

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. Because if there is one thing we can all put our faith in it’s ten year promises from the Federal government.

    1. Illegals raise government spending. So a cost to reduce that spending may be worthwhile.

      1. I don’t think it will accomplish either. It’s Kabuki legislation.

        1. It raises govt spending for the simple fact that we have a welfare state- and nobody can be disqualified.

      2. Actually, illegal humans pay in about $10 billion per year to prop up Social Security (under fake SSNs), with little if any hope of ever getting to benefit from what they paid in. That’s why the Feds are half-assed in fighting illegal humans, is because they (“illegals”) are so helpful in propping up Social Security. This is the actual truth, but illegal-human-haters don’t want to talk about that particular FACT…

        “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one…

        1. I don’t want my SS system to be propped up by illegal humans who pay in with little hope of ever getting any benefits.

          1. Yes, I will probably draw SS bennies in a few years, and this “little thing” here we are chatting about, will leave me feeling a bit morally compromised, since I am part, then, of an abusive system, and benefiting from it… I am not at all sure how I can make any meaningful (and EFFECTIVE) steps towards helping towards rectifying that… Adding another hateful voice against “illegal humans”, though, is at the VERY bottom of the list, as I think about it…

            1. Why is simple analysis and differing opinion suddenly turn into hate speech?

        2. lol ten whole billion dollars. What, are you doctor evil? The average illegal is sucking down tens of thousands a year in benefits via their anchor babies. 3 kids times $13,000 plus 3 times $3000 for Medicaid plus food stamps, WIC, etc. they’re getting 2-3 times their average gross pay in government benefits.

          1. Depending on whose “facts” you look at, they may or may not be using up more value LOCALLY (via mandates concerning schooling and emergency-room care, etc.) than the taxes that they pay in… LOCALLY. However, with regards to the fed’s Social Security program, the “illegal humans” pay and pay and pay, with very little chance of ever getting value back out of SS… These are the FACTS!

            READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL and you will see… (PS, what is YOUR source?)

            “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one…

            1. They qualify for SS the moment they hit our shores- I observe it daily at work. You have immigrants (many illegal) who absorb more benefits by enrolling their kids at the tune of $10-15K per year in education costs. How much do you suggest they are paying in SS payments/year?

            2. “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes”- you realize that that is an article from the Atlantic? Biased a little, are you? And they received a grant from the Emerson Collective, a PAC for immigration? This is your “source”?

          2. So is the average US citizen welfare mother. Why should I give a shit which country the person sucking down welfare was born in ?

            1. Why should I give a shit which country the person sucking down welfare was born in ?

              You have the choice whether or not to pay for illegals. You can’t deport citizens.

              You are such an idiot.

              1. “You have the choice whether or not to pay for illegals. You can’t deport citizens.”

                Totally arbitrary rules… “Gingers (red-heads) can be roasted and eaten on sight. Non-gingers can NOT; they have human rights.”

                You’d be OK with that if THAT was the arbitrary rules agreed upon, right now? Do you actually believe in any genuine PRINCIPLES, other than what is blessed by the majority, and what is politically expedient, right now? Or are you REALLY, totally and completely, “careless”?

                1. That’s why we have laws- to avoid arbitrary rules. Which principles do you live by- the ones you have decided are “right”, without public debate?

        3. Actually, illegal humans pay in about $10 billion per year to prop up Social Security (under fake SSNs), …This is the actual truth, but illegal-human-haters don’t want to talk about that particular FACT…

          If hating identity theft is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

          1. And I don’t suppose, either, that you will mind living off of the hard work of the illegal humans, when you start drawing Social Security? ‘Cause that’s what this is about… It’s not “identity theft” when I make up a fake ID in the name of Joe Smith, or Mickey Mouse… And if I “steal the identity of” a girl who died at age 5, 12 years ago, WHO is being harmed?

            On the other hand, “illegal humans” are harmed when we retire and pull (parasitize) a substantial portion of their wages, for no benefit to them…

            Well anyway, your current (if you are on SS) or potential future parasitism doesn’t bother you? You might want to have a conversation with your conscience…

            1. It’s not “identity theft” when I make up a fake ID in the name of Joe Smith, or Mickey Mouse

              If you’re using someone’s SSN to hold a job, that’s identity theft, you dumbass.

              On the other hand, “illegal humans” are harmed when we retire and pull (parasitize) a substantial portion of their wages, for no benefit to them…

              Good. Our schools are harmed with their subliterate spawn.

              Well anyway, your current (if you are on SS) or potential future parasitism doesn’t bother you? You might want to have a conversation with your conscience…

              Try constructing a real argument for once–or better yet, live in a barrio for about five years.

              1. “If you’re using someone’s SSN to hold a job, that’s identity theft, you dumbass.”

                Again, who was harmed? Ever hear of “three felonies a day”? Just because Government Almighty calls something “bad” or “a crime” is enough for you to condemn it? Aren’t you then just a puppet of Government Almighty? Or only when it suits your set-in-concrete, pre-existing mindset, such as illegal-human-hating?

                1. Again, who was harmed?

                  So, “libertarians” are now adopting the “property is theft” line of SJW commies?

                  Just because Government Almighty calls something “bad” or “a crime” is enough for you to condemn it? Aren’t you then just a puppet of Government Almighty?

                  Lol, please. You wouldn’t be able to make it through the average day without “Government Almighty” dictating at least some of society’s functions, so don’t pretend you’re above it all.

                  Or only when it suits your set-in-concrete, pre-existing mindset, such as illegal-human-hating?

                  Yes, I do hate people who soak up increasing taxpayer resources, agitate for even more, and act as if their wonderous brown skin frees them of any responsibility for their actions. What’s the problem?

                2. Sooo… you advocate that the rule of law be disregarded? Ever heard of Hammurabi’s Code of Laws and its effect on civilization? Have you considered perhaps reforming how law is made, and understanding that nations are allowed to decide who enters their country as a matter of their own choice?

      3. Re: MSimon,

        Illegals raise government spending [???] .

        Liar.

        1. Yep, everyone knows they don’t have kids or use roads or anything. They just materialize at work then dematerialize until the next morning

          Moron.

        2. How much do they contribute to SS in their first year of employment? If they have 3 children, they can enroll them for free at a cost of $10K- $15K/ year, not to mention free medical care and free meals. Do that math for us please.

  2. Meanwhile, Cotton is cottoning on to the RAISE Act that seeks to slash legal immigration by half by 2027 on the theory that reducing the pool of foreign workers will make the American worker rich again?not the free market, competition or the “Protestant work ethic,” just naked protectionism.

    Umm, isn’t protecting American workers one of those things the American government should concern itself with?

    1. No. There is no justification for government theft and coercion, period. Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Protect American workers from what, exactly? The vagaries of the free market? Competition?

      No, it’s not the government’s job to manipulate the market price of labor.

    3. From what? The employer’s right to hire someone else? Why should the government be protecting workers at the expense of employers?

      1. Why should the government be protecting workers at the expense of employers?

        One reason they would do it – because otherwise they’ll get voted out of office by people who can’t compete against cheap foreign labor.

    4. No, moron.

      1. Shut up, Cytotoxic.

    5. Umm, isn’t protecting American workers one of those things the American government should concern itself with?

      More relevantly, I’m pretty sure Shikha’s gone batshit crazy. Does border enforcement somehow get more rigorous during a government shutdown? Does ebbing tide of illegal immigration suddenly swell when the free shit machine gets turned off?

      I’m a bit agnostic on American protectionism and I kinda fail to see, from a libertarian perspective, how you can be against the ‘pet cause or shut it down’ idea. Isn’t this the same magazine that was just saying we should impeach more often? WTF difference does it make if it doubles the number of special counsels and keeps congress in session and spending money?

  3. I wonder why Shikha was muzzled in recent weeks/months.
    Oh well, She’s back

    1. I find nothing in this Shikha article that is objectionable. In fact, I rather like this article.

      1. I’m not objecting to anything in the article either. I’ve given up reading her.

      2. “Republicans have taken to hating immigrants more than government spending…”
        This is hyperbole and makes Shikha the despicable writer that she is.

        Demaning illegal immigrants follow our laws is not the same as hating someone. More like hate that they are taking advantage of our freedom and breaking our immigration laws.

  4. Meadows told Breitbart News, the organ of immigration hawks, last week that he was prepared to shut down the government again in September if Congress’ spending bill failed to fund the Great Wall of Trump. “There is nothing more critical that has to be funded than the funding for the border wall,” he declared.

    Holy balls.

    The Cotton bill would slash legal immigration in half by 2027 because he feels it’s the government’s duty to protect American workers from too much labor competition.

    My team knows what’s best.

    1. I hope the border wall just happens soon. Fails and then we can worry about shit that matters.

      Wasn’t the estimated cost for it under a billion anyway? I’m not for it, but every time I see plans for it it just comes off as a purely symbolic nothing.

    2. “There is nothing more critical that has to be funded than the funding for the border wall”

      There’s a missing element there: more critical for what? Your need for a campaign issue, I’m betting.

      And: And they don’t care about limited government either. There are some people who have known this for years. Maybe you’re just not reading the right publications if this is a revelation to you.

  5. If we have to have Shika articles, can they at least be on something other than immigration? Her retardation seems to peak when she’s on that topic. Or better yet Reason, get someone who isn’t a complete fucking spaz to write about the topic.

    1. She’s been off Reason’s immigration beat for a while. This is her first “I” article in a while. Maybe because it’s just a link to another publication.

      I used to read her retardation until I reached the point where I just couldn’t. Now I just click in to mock her.

  6. You can climb over a wall. You know what’s harder to climb over? A big-ass strip of double-sided tape.

    1. The hardest for you is climbing over the threshold of your mother’s basement.

    2. Interesting idea. Line the border with fly paper.

    3. Tony speaks from bitter experience.

  7. Was anyone ever stupid enough to believe that the Republicans really hated government spending? Or cared about limited government?

    1. I think the problem is the fact that we only have two parties. Welsh talks about this a fair amount and on this I do agree.

      Republicans and Democrats are each a hodgepodge of ideas that have no logical reason to be connected. Anti-Abortion and Fiscal Frugalness for instance. Or gay marriage advocacy and belief in increased social spending.

      So each party is saddled with these expectations, when the reality is that people vary wildly within those confines. Because there do seem to be some fiscal conservatives for real in the Reps, but there are just as many who clearly are just paying lip service to the idea.

      1. We don’t have only two parties. The problem is retarded voters.

      2. It’s almost as if it were that way by design. You gotta split the population about 50-50 on emotional issues that fire people up, so that the illusion of two opposing sides remains, while the pillaging continues unabated.

        1. Nah. Check out the office of Vice President. In the original constitution, it was the runner-up to president that became Vice. This made sense to them at the time because they didn’t expect political parties. Once it became obvious that the runner-up was always going to be part of a different political party and opposed to all sorts of things the president was up to, they had to amend the constitution so that you voted for a President/Vice-President ticket.

          That’s just one of the many examples that shows that no, the founders didn’t plan for political parties. If they had, we probably would have had something more like a prime minister chosen by congress then the electoral college.

          But hey, in 1780-something there weren’t a lot of working constitutional republics to go around, so it’s not like they had any good blue prints to work off of.

          1. They understood “faction”, because they’d seen it in Parliament, but hoped to suppress it. They thought maybe they could limit it to a bunch of small interests, balkanized, who would not be able to ally succssfully into lasting parties.

      3. Republicans and Democrats are each a hodgepodge of ideas that have no logical reason to be connected. Anti-Abortion and Fiscal Frugalness for instance. Or gay marriage advocacy and belief in increased social spending.

        This is a topic that’s fascinated me for yrs. There may be no logical reason for them to be connected, but I also get a strong sense the correlations are not random?that although partly path-dependent, there are other dynamics going on that would make them somewhat reproducible if hx were rewound & rerun.

    2. W launched big government conservatism.

      1. Reagan’s spending disagrees.

        1. When the party turned from Goldwater is when the Republicans died.

          1. That was over 50 years ago.

            And they didn’t die, they just changed.

          2. Didn’t die. Just a bunch of RINOs joined up as Republicans.

            Joe Scarborough is proof of that.

  8. loving the market economy

    To be fair, they have never really loved the free market. They have always been the party of mercantilism. (there was even a war fought over this.)

    In the Age of Trump, Republicans have taken to hating immigrants more than government spending…threatened to shut down the government again in fall if the new spending bill did not set aside enough money to build the Great Wall of Trump.

    The wall is already enforceable per legislation passed by a previous congress/admin and has nothing to do with hating immigrants. Get a grip. Or at least try not to be so disingenuous.

  9. And yet people keep telling me they are only against illegal immigration. Strange.

    1. I’m only against immigrants from Western Europe. If we built a ocean wall to block them I would be all for it.

      1. Fucking Germans. TAKE YOUR SOCKS OFF AT THE BEACH, DUMMKOPFEN.

        1. But please, do not take off your leather swimsuit.

      2. If we built a ocean wall to block them I would be all for it.

        *places index finger against chin, extends thumb*

        I swear to God, BestUsedCarSales, if you build that ocean wall and keep those filthy, snooty Europeans out I’m going to kill this motherfucker!

      3. I agree. We don’t need more Europeans bringing their un-American social-democratic culture with them. History has shown that Europeans can’t understand the free market, so we should keep them out.

        1. Based on their voting patterns, Latin Americans are just as bad. But hey, MUH TACO TRUCKS!

    2. And yet people keep telling me they are only against illegal immigration.

      Is there a libertarian site around here somewhere? You know a place where people both for and against immigration would like to see the federal government shut down?

    3. … you think a border wall is to keep legal immigrants out?

  10. The free market could probably put a stop to these immigrants flooding across the border and taking our jobs – obviously there’s a huge demand for jobs south of the border. A smart businessman like Trump must understand that the laws of supply and demand dictate that a high demand and low supply of jobs means you can offer lower wages and still get plenty of job applicants if you move your production to Mexico. And wouldn’t that be a win/win/win situation, helping poor people in Mexico by giving them jobs while at the same time benefitting American consumers from the lower costs of production and American society from illegal immigrants? You’d think people would applaud such a wise, benevolent initiative as moving factories to places where there are poor people who need jobs.

    1. Indeed, if you hate immigration, you should be advocating extending NAFTA to central America.
      Nothing will keep Hispanics out like giving them better jobs at home.

    2. Re: Jerryskids,

      The free market could probably put a stop to these immigrants flooding across the border and taking our [sic] jobs

      The free market should probably pit a stop to the ridiculous myth that jobs are owned by “Americans” insteas of belonging to employers which they are.

  11. Fuck you, Dalmia. How are you still employed here?

    1. Your handle is appropriate.

  12. Republicans only “hate government spending” when the President has a “-D” after his name. If it’s “-R” then suddenly “nobody cares about deficits”.

    The only people that can be excused for not figuring this out already are those that came of age during the Obama administration. If you were an adult during W. Bush’s term, you have no excuse.

  13. Even God can’t stop immigration. Trump can only reduce it. But is it worth the effort?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.