Immigration

The Pernicious Myth of 'Chain Migration'

|

President Donald Trump's war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep. No longer does he only want to throw "bad hombres" out. He's even targeting immigrants who pose no security threat to the country. And recently, he has become preoccupied with so-called chain migration.

"CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration!" he bleated in one tweet. The practice is "horrible" and "bad for the country," he barked in others.

The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America's immigration system: keeping families intact, which, as it happens, has also worked wonders for America's economy.

The term is meant to conjure images of a process in which one immigrant comes into the country and then pulls in hordes of relatives, who in turn pull in hordes more, until entire tribes and villages are emptied into the United States. The White House even released an infographic to that effect.

But that's not how things work. Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings—not aunts, uncles, and cousins. Moreover, they can do so only after they themselves receive green cards or become naturalized citizens.

According to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of government data, it can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to gain entry and pull in the next link in the "chain." Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards. If the wife wished to bring her siblings over, the quickest route would be for her to become naturalized, too, which would take five years. Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they'd be middle aged!

As the Mercatus Center's Daniel Griswold wrote in The Hill, the U.S. system admits only 2–2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents. That's the same rate as in Canada and Australia—countries whose skills-based systems are Trump's alleged models. And about 66 percent of the foreigners America admits under this category are spouses or minor children. Hence, America can't stop what nativists call "mass immigration" without breaking up nuclear families.

Sadly, even failed Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, an immigration dove and Mr. Family Values himself, recommended rebalancing America's immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country, and ramping up the employment-based immigration that accounts for a third. To his credit, unlike Trump, Bush favored raising overall immigration levels. He knows that without more foreign workers, America's workforce will diminish by 8 million by 2035.

One reason Republicans such as Bush badmouth family-based immigration is that they believe allowing in relatives rather than skilled professionals is not good for the economy. That's understandable—and profoundly mistaken. Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here. Regardless of which bureaucratic category they're admitted under, they do what it takes to be productive and get ahead.

A study by Harriet Duleep of the College of William & Mary and Mark Regets, then of the National Science Foundation, examined three decades of census data and found no difference in the final earnings of foreigners sponsored by family members vs. those sponsored by employers. Even though the former make less money than the latter initially, they also make far bigger and more rapid income gains over time.

Why? Immigrants who come on family visas aren't tied to specific companies or occupations. They're freer to acquire new skills and go into fields where they expect good returns, achieving an even snugger fit with America's labor market than those who already had positions waiting for them. And since they don't have jobs in hand on arrival, they have a lower opportunity cost for starting a business, and are more likely to be able to count on family support. Finally, the "best and brightest" have many options, but they often pick America because they have family here.

"Chain migration" is clever vernacular that does double duty for nativists. It demonizes the family-based immigration process while masking the real agenda: breaking up foreign-born families so as to encourage immigrants here to "self deport" and discourage new ones from coming. It'll be a tremendous loss for America's economy if immigration prohibitionists succeed.

NEXT: Brickbat: Drive On

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. Well, it’s nice to know that one can read headlines and figure out who wrote the article instantly.

    The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America’s immigration system: keeping families intact, which, as it happens, has also worked wonders for America’s economy.

    Can you explain why that should be a goal? Why should it be our concern that you bring your mom, dad, adult children, siblings, etc here? You could always, you know, stay home if that is a desperate need for you.

    As the Mercatus Center’s Daniel Griswold wrote in The Hill, the U.S. system admits only 2?2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents. That’s the same rate as in Canada and Australia?countries whose skills-based systems are Trump’s alleged models.

    No notation of their overall immigration level I notice.

    “Chain migration” is clever vernacular that does double duty for nativists. It demonizes the family-based immigration process while masking the real agenda: breaking up foreign-born families so as to encourage immigrants here to “self deport” and discourage new ones from coming. It’ll be a tremendous loss for America’s economy if immigration prohibitionists succeed.

    You seek open borders. You provide no reason why, FOR AMERICA, it is vital we permit this nonsense. Because you cannot.

    1. If Open Borders becomes US immigration policy does this mean that Reason will fire Shikha Dalmia since she will have nothing to write about?

      1. If you’re not an Open Borders supporter yourself, you should be careful of what you say, because I’m pretty sure there are some anti-Open-Borders folks here who would be willing to change their position just to make that happen.

    2. The pernicious myth on display here is the notion that Dalmia is remotely libertarian.

      1. What the actual fuck does libertarian have to do with restricting the free movement of people?

        Der terk er medercare?

        1. Why all the complaints, then, about Russia invading their neighbors?

          We should APPLAUD them for exercising their free movement of people, right?

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. BG Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

            1. Is it just me, or does this spam make more sense then Tony and is less annoying than Hihn?

              1. less annoying than Hihn?

                Top this, chump
                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122042
                (sneer)

                1. What is he supposed to be topping there exactly? It’s just more of the stuff you spam. Did you mean to link something else?

                  1. What is he supposed to be topping there exactly

                    (snort)
                    Goober describes FIVE original sources as “spam” because they make a monkey out of HIM too
                    And his WHINING is superior to actual PROOF.

                    What else from a goober whop BRAGS of being a shitlord?

              2. Don’t know if it makes more sense than Tony – but it surely makes more sense than Shikha.

              3. MikeP2 – it’s not just you.

                1. smirk

                  Even Trey Gowdy says it’s bullshit that the FISA warrant affected the rest of the investigation: “So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’s meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there’s going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.”

                  Republicans bail on Trump … vote UNANIMOUSLY to release the Democrat rebuttal. Final straw may have been when even TREY GOWDY announced as one one six Republicans would vote with Democrats for full release .

                  (This action also HUMILIATES Sevo, Last of he Shitloards, MarkP2, Sammi, damikesc Elias Fakabrain, and other trolling puppets .)

                  Left – Right = Zero

    3. Right on cue the christianofascist commentariat sockpuppets leap onto any criticism of “chain migration” with whoops of “open borders” just as they dismiss the LP platform as “anarchism” without bothering to read it. Their tariff-and-spend forbears described a revenue-only tariff as “free trade” and pushed for increases until nullification by Civil War was in full swing before a perplexed Abe Lincoln was finally sworn in. This is the party that calls Dixiecrat coathanger abortion laws “pro-life” and has at least thrice caused crashes and depressions trying to enforce shoot-first prohibitionism (“ordered liberty”) with asset-forfeiture looting sprees. Pathetic mutilation of language is symptomatic of desperation.

      1. This has nothing to do with abortion. Don’t bring abortion into it.

      2. “American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings?not aunts, uncles, and cousins.

        You left one category out: spouses. So those siblings and adult children each bring their spouses, each of whom has their own set of parents, siblings, and adult children. All of those also have spouses, who have parents, siblings, and adult children…

        1. Not to mention those types are well known to marry their aunts uncles and cousins who then marry all their children and grandparents to each other. Before you know it – immigrants are gonna be taking over our front porches and playing Dueling Banjos.

    4. Bravo!I totally enjoyed your clear and concise rebuttal to this “free for all” promoting liberal. Thank you. Quite refreshing .

    5. I wouldn’t be inclined to vomit nearly as often if not for the contributions of Shikha. Only someone who does not give a crap about America could think the way she does.

      Is there anyone who reads Reason who enjoys her lunacy? If not, why is she still here? Does she have blackmail material on someone?

      Chain Migration:

      The term is meant to conjure images of a process in which one immigrant comes into the country and then pulls in hordes of relatives, who in turn pull in hordes more, until entire tribes and villages are emptied into the United States… Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings.

      So approve one person who has a spouse, 5 brothers and 4 sisters, two parents, 2 minor and 4 adult children and you suddenly have 19 people where you only intended to admit one. Then when each of the brothers and sisters and adult children brings THEIR 6 kids and spouses, the total is suddenly up to 110… and of course then the spouses recruit their brothers and sisters and parents and their kids…

      Invite 1 get 200+? How is that NOT a “horde”?

      Of course, that’s what the communist/socialist Demoncraps want.

      Your dissociation from truth and reality makes Donald Trump look positively honest and sane by comparison.

      Trump is right – and Shikha is… delusional, deceptive and a liar.

      1. Can a person be delusional and a liar at the same time? 😀

  2. “The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America’s immigration system: keeping families intact, ”

    Keep families intact!
    Only allow foreigners with no family to immigrate to the US!

    1. Help keep families intact! Deport illegal aliens back to the countries where they left their wives and children!

      1. That’s some family reunification we can all get behind!

      2. That’s some family reunification we can all get behind!

  3. President Donald Trump’s war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep. No longer does he only want to throw “bad hombres” out.
    ###

    American First was always central to Trump’s immigration policy. That means we let in those who benefit the mass of Americans. That keeps out a lot more people than just “bad hombres”.

    Doesn’t Reason have anyone to champion open borders who can do it without incessant lying?

    1. Championing open borders REQUIRES lying, and ignoring property rights. It’ anti libertarian.

      1. BigT
        Championing open borders REQUIRES lying, and ignoring property rights

        Why are so many goobers brainwashed by the “property rights” bullshit.
        Libertarians know what property rights are (snort)

        1. You heard it here folks. Hihn thinks property rights are bullshit.

    2. “President Donald Trump’s war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep”

      Apparently enforcing the fairly liberal immigration law in your own country is “war” now.

    3. The LP platform committee wrote: …we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. National Socialist prohibitionists interpret that as “open borders.” Then again their interpretation of freedom is: 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

    4. The liar is you, buybuy … His immigration was ALWAYS ‘bad hombres” during the campaign.
      Or you too stupid to see what you did.

      1. The misinformed is you,Hihn,Trumps America first and MAGA was central. Of course the bad hombres were also to be kept out. It’s just that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE THE BAD HOMBRES.

        1. You’re full of shit. He DEFINED America First targeting bad hombres only

          ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE THE BAD HOMBRES.

          You’re full of shit … to even the majority of Trump voters!

          Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
          86% want citizenship for dreamers
          83%f for ALL illegals working here.
          ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

          Or is Fox the MSM in your delusional reality?

          Anything else, Sluggo?

          1. “He DEFINED America First targeting bad hombres only”

            That’s retarded even for you.

            Bravo.

            “They have to go”
            https://youtu.be/EBxFVgRBqqc

          2. Push polls are meaningless.

      2. Hihn is another lying Open Borders propagandist

        Shocked! Shocked, I am!

        1. buybuydandavis kieas AGAIN, says I promoted open borders
          Proof that he lies: https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122061
          The Authoritarian Right be pathetic

          1. Speaking of pathetic, you link back to your claim that I lied as proof that I Iied.

            You’re really insane. The best dancing monkey on the intertubes.

            “Look at all my outrage in BOLD.”

      3. The bad hombres begins with anyone who crosses the border illegally.

        We should kill all the bad hombres for a start.

        Once that’s done, we can talk about the rest.

        1. BambiB be psycho fascist, Per FOX NEWS!

          The bad hombres begins with anyone who crosses the border illegally

          Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
          86% want citizenship for dreamers
          83%f for ALL illegals working here.
          ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

          Anything else? (snort)

    5. If you listened to her rhetoric you would know that he essentially things all immigrants are criminals, rapists, murderers, and thieves, but some small minority of them are “okay people”, the rest are all criminals.

  4. ” Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings?not aunts, uncles, and cousins. ”

    So, Joe immigrates to the US. That allows his parents and siblings to immigrate too.

    Now all the siblings of the parents can immigrate. — All Joe’s aunts and uncles
    Now the adult children of all Joe’s aunts and uncles — All Joe’s cousins

    So, Reason lies again in service of Open Borders propaganda, denying the plain facts of chain immigration.

    Chain immigration. Totally incompatible with merit driven immigration. Totally incompatible with America First.

    1. No, no, no. Didn’t you see the part about how it can take 45 years to pull in the next link of the chain? That sounds like a big number, so it’s obviously no problem! Also it was according to data compiled by the National Foundation for American Policy, and a name that neutral means they’re definitely not partisan in any way.

    2. Yeeeeeesssss!!!!

    3. And brought to all of us in 1965 by Ted Kennedy. What a surprise.

    4. It should only be spouses and children. That seems like a reasonable compromise, and it should all be merit based outside of this. Given those limitations we should at least triple the number of allowed immigrants. Especially from countries that have Western values.

  5. ” Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they’d be middle aged!”

    And what does it matter what happens to the United States in 20 years?

      1. Well reasoned retort!

        1. As good as yours. (snort)

          How’s this?

          Republicans bail on Trump … vote UNANIMOUSLY to release the Democrat rebuttal. Final straw may have been when even TREY GOWDY announced as one one six Republicans would vote with Democrats for full release .

          (This action also HUMILIATES Sevo, Last of he Shitloards, Sammi, damikesc, Elias Fakabrain, bjybuydavis and other trolling puppets .)

          Left – Right = Zero

          1. We’re just DESTROYED, right?

            Can you be real?

            Must of the Trump people I’m aware of want them to release it all.

          2. The deomncrap “rebuttal” will be just another load of the bullshit that constantly spills from the alleged brains of the communists/progressives/liberals.
            It will ooze of the panic that has set in since Trump revealed that he was wiretapped, by the last pResident – the halfrican bath house boy.

    1. Buybuydavis,and what’s 20 years,they are spending it anyway in America taking advantage of all the benefits and social programs.

      1. People spend their whole lives trying to make a better future for their kids.

        Does Shikha have kids?

        Note that the rulers of Europe, selling Europe’s legacy down the river for power today, are remarkably childless.
        https://goo.gl/TmsAs2

        Here’s a bio on Shikha
        https://goo.gl/ZMFaen

        Seems like all her extended family is still in New Dehli, while she lives in the US with her husband and dog. She has a son from a previous marriage. I wonder where he is.

        I don’t see a lot of skin in the game for America, past or future.

        Money Shot from the Bio:
        “She considers herself to be a progressive libertarian”

        A Progressitarian! Bwahahaha! It’s official!

        1. Yup. I think that’s one of the most obvious problems with a lot of these people. Many don’t have children, so they literally don’t care about the future. I can’t count the number of times talking with my grandma or father about politics when they said “Well, I’ll probably be dead before XYZ is a problem, but I really hope for your sake XYZ gets sorted out.”

          They CARE, because they have progeny that they care about. A lot of childless people I know in their 30s/40s seem to have the same Don’t Give A Fuck attitude about the far flung future too. I don’t have kids yet, but plan to, and so I DO care about beyond my own lifetime.

  6. ” Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here. ”

    How many billions of people in the world would be better off in America than remaining in their own countries?

    Most all of people from the biggest shitholes in the world. The most illiterate, most crime ridden, most corrupt, least free.

    1. Most people would be better off in America.
      Most countries would be better off if their people stayed home and worked to make their country better.

      This is the pernicious evil of low-barrier immigration as it perpetuates a skill-drain on the countries that need those skills the most.

      Haiti is a sh”hole in no small part because so many people with success-traits left Haiti for greener pastures.

      Open borders is evil. A lie told for base political reasons that does nothing but increase global suffering.

      1. MikeP2~ I’ve often argued this but liberals refuse to believe this. The proof in in the immigration.

        1. Goober has no clue what a liberal is either!
          On top of his MASSIVE blunder here:
          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122569

          Goobers be sayin’ anyone with a different viewpoint MUST be a liberal, because their 15% speaks for all Americans (smirk)

          1. I see you took your and off.

            Tired of looking like a crank?

            Don’t worry, I’ll keep helping you out with all your tells of lunacy, and maybe someday people won’t instantly point and laugh when you show up.

            “(smirk)”

            Bwahahaha! Just can’t help yourself, can you?

  7. The president is using nativist language

    You know, words do have meaning. Perhaps people who are ostensibly libertarian* should not assist leftists in destroying the meaning of words.

    *I know she’s really a proggy in drag, and almost couldn’t type that.

    1. “You know, words do have meaning.”

      So you think Trump isn’t a Nativist?

      1. No, he’s a patriot.

        1. Elias Fakabrain BELEEBS one cannot be both a patriot and a nativist!
          When a nativists. by definition, exdploit patriotism
          And REAL patriots know that patriotism can also be the last refuge of a scoundrel.
          Which makes Fakabrain a ….
          (snicker)

          1. So many things wrong with your post……..

            “Elias Fakabrain BELEEBS one cannot be both a patriot and a nativist! When a nativists. by definition, exdploit patriotism!”

            First, I am not a ‘Beleeber’. Justin Bieber should be deported once and for all. Second, by whose definition do ‘nativists’ ‘exploit patriotism’? Also, you’re confusing response to Leo. Trump isn’t a nativist, period. You are confused about all that, given your pathological jealousy towards him, and his accomplishments.

            “And REAL patriots know that patriotism can also be the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

            That isn’t relevant to Trump, as he is a true patriot. Again, I think your envy of Trump enrages yo use much you can’t think clearly. So I’m glad to have this opportunity to straighten you out for your own benefit.

            Hopefully that helps you. I know you need it.

            1. Last of the shitlords- Thank for flushing that rather large,supperating,codswallop of dejected excreta. Some faecetic lumps really beg to be straightened out.

              1. Last of the shitlords- Thank for flushing that rather large,supperating,codswallop of dejected excreta

                (sneer) You missed his massive fuckup!
                But it’s not as bad as your even bigger fuckup here
                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122569

                And here
                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122574

            2. So many things wrong with your post…..

              (snort)

              First, I am not a ‘Beleeber’.

              You’re also not Elias

              Thank you for playing. Please select a lovely parting gift.

              1. And what, exactly, is wrong with being a “nativist”?
                As if that has any real meaning, anyway.
                Just another card the liberals/progressives/communists throw down to avoid making an argument and to try to shut down the reasoned ones coming their way.

        2. He’s no fucking patriot, that’s for damn sure. No one who is a patriot is under the thumb of Russians

      2. “So you think Trump isn’t a Nativist?”

        I think he is. I think he ought to be. I certainly am, by this definition:

        “A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 1800s, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.

        This explains the attitudes of probably 80+% of the World’s population, including the attitudes of many of those nationals that wish to come here.

        1. 86% of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers.
          83% for all illegals now working here

          Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
          86% want citizenship for dreamers
          83%f for ALL illegals working here.
          ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

          1. “86% of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers.”

            Yes, that path is take your ass to the end of the fucking line and wait until your number is called like the aspiring legal immigrants seeking to live here are doing.

            That is the path, asshole.

          2. Dreamers were not here because of their own choice, but they are pretty much a silo issue. They have little to do with immigration policy and keeping 0th generation illegal immigrants out so they can keep perpetuating the problem. Stronger border security, an e-verify that works, and forget about a fucking wall and use the money on fixing the immigration service and allow in more legal, merit based, western values immigrants.

  8. Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state? [note that it is no part of the definition of a state]
    All other issues aside, what possible business is it of a government? Why?

    Yeah, yeah, the pernicious impacts of the current arrangements. feh. Camel’s nose under the tent flap and all that.
    States do not own the members of their populace.
    States do not have the right to control who or how you associate with others, regardless of their location or place of origin. And regardless of their attempts to do so.
    States do not have the right to pick your pocket to support somebody else, regardless of their location or place of origin. So we’re just going to accept that that last bit happens and therefore the rest can and should be trash canned? I think not.

    That is, or ought to be, foundational.

    1. The State should not fund a massive welfare system by taxing people

      The State should not force people to associate but it does under penalty of fines and jail.

      Are you going to stop this when your open borders policy comes into effect?

      1. It needs to be stopped irrespective of immigration.
        We’re working to stop it, with varying degrees of success.

        Ultimately, this is non-responsive. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
        What makes government control, in the current fashion, over immigration legitimate?

        1. If the main argument against the free movement of peoples is in fact the costs, then why not try to fix that aspect, instead of treat the issue like it must have a black or white solution? It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be a guest worker program that allows people to freely come to the US (no limits, no lines, no BS) while making these people ineligible for things like welfare, medicaid, unemployment, etc.

          If you want to come to the US and work and bring and support your own family (or anybody for that matter) then give these people Tax IDs and let them work within our current system of laws.

          The fact is that prohibition of labor, like all forms of state prohibition, just drives the activity underground. Walls and laws don’t and won’t eliminate the issue. The Nationalists are the ones that are simply kicking the can down the road instead of offering a principled approach.

          1. No open borders.
            No chain migration.
            Build the wall.

            After all that, let’s sort out who is left here illegally that we might keep, and then institute a streamlined guest VISA worker program that suits the needs of the US Citizen.

            1. “FUCK THE CONSTITUTION!” whines Elias Fakabrain

              1. Actually, every single thing I said is completely constitutional. Also, since you are so against bullying, you might want to cease your own.

                1. You’ve confused your sockpuppets!

                  Actually, every single thing I said is completely constitutional

                  QUOTE THE WORDS ON IMMIGRATION IN THE CONSTITUTION. (SNORT)

                  Also, since you are so against bullying, you might want to cease your own.

                  Quote where immigration is in the Constitution.
                  And TRY to keep your sockpuppets straight, so you look less like a jackass. (sneer)

                  1. ” To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

                    Sometimes the rule is “You can’t come here”.

                    1. Naturalization is of course, not immigration. The courts have stretched one to mean the other, much as they’ve stretched the Commerce Clause to the point of being almost unrecognizable (and applied to immigration over the years).

                      Even Judge Napolitano agrees that fed gov has no enumerated power to regulate immigration.

                      Are you saying that you’re for a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution?

                    2. Naturalization is of course, not immigration.

                      One tends to not happen without the other, but it’s telling that you have to try and make them mutually exclusive.

                    3. NOW Red Rocks lies AND denies Judge Napolitano.

                      Naturalization is of course, not immigration. Even Judge Napolitano agrees that fed gov has no enumerated power to regulate immigration.

                      One tends to not happen without the other, but it’s telling that you have to try and make them mutually exclusive.

                      It’s telling that you LIE about his clearly visible words.
                      Why do you LIE about Judge Napolitano. But typical of you

                      SHAME ON YOU

                    4. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch. Stop lying, you shrieking bitch.

                    5. Are you saying that you’re for a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution?

                      buybuydabndavis is ALMOST as crazy as Red Rocks

                    6. You take that back!

                      I’m *much* crazier!

                    7. Dumbfuck Hihnsano projecting like a movie theater again. Stop projecting, you crying bitch.

                    8. BWAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA

                      QUOTE THE WORDS ON IMMIGRATION IN THE CONSTITUTION. (SNORT)

                      ” To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
                      Sometimes the rule is “You can’t come here”.

                      DUMBFUCK DOESN’T KNOW WHAT NATURIZATION MEANS EITHER (snort)

                      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization
                      naturalize
                      [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-]
                      verb (used with object), naturalized, naturalizing.
                      1. to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.

                      QUOTE THE WORDS ON IMMIGRATION IN THE CONSTITUTION. (SNORT)

          2. If These States were to quit exporting the shoot-first prohibitionism lovingly described in the State Department Report “International Narcotics” report that caused the March 2015 Flash Crash (It’s free to download). There is the blueprint for forcing the entire planet to subsidize Coors & Budweiser, The Liquor Trust and Big Tobacco by shooting and jailing foot-dragging miscreants in what they imagined were “their” countries. Small wonder refugees are fleeing to somewhere else, and ironic that the “somewhere else” is where the prohibitionist chickens come home to roost!

          3. “… making these people ineligible for things…”

            You have been asked repeatedly how this would be enforced when we cannot even enforce existing immigration law, and you have steadfastly refused to provide any meaningful answer.

            My answer to you is: You first, then we can talk.

          4. For me the costs have been entirely secondary.

            It’s the voting.

            Government is a gun. Voting points the gun.

            There are already enough people pointing that gun at my head in the US, and people too eager to do it as well.

            The problem is that people from other countries are generally *even more* eager to point that gun at my head.

            Import people less libertarian than Americans, get a less libertarian country. It’s not rocket science.

            1. FASCIST WOULD DEMAND PARTISAN POLITICAL TEST FOR IMMIGRATION.
              LIKE HITLER DID FOR THE JEWS

              Left – Right = Zero

              1. “Libertarian” would destroy Liberty in America because “muh principles”.

              2. You forget that sometimes the action you need to take for the BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME is not the most moral. There are times where one may have to choose between starving to death, or stealing. I would steal. You may have to choose between YOU being shot, or shooting someone else. I would shoot the other guy.

                I’m all for letting things be free on all the millions of little things that are not an existential threat to the existence of our civilization… But actions that would cause the utter destruction of that civilization, I am 110% against. Mass immigration is just such a thing, especially if we ever went to true open borders.

                A single example: If all the current illegal aliens were legalized, given their voting patterns, we would now have President Clinton in office. That’s 100% non arguable. If Reagan hadn’t legalized the Mexicans in the 80s, Trump probably would have had even more electoral votes. Real world outcomes from this shit. Trump isn’t great, but the center moves based off of these things, and the immigrant demographic has shifted the US far to the left of where it would have been.

        2. What makes government control, in the current fashion, over immigration legitimate?
          The fact that this is not an anarchy.
          That the citizens of the US are supposed to abide by the foundations upon which it was built.
          That we adhere to the US Constitution, which explicitly places naturalization – the admittance and bestowing of citizenship on immigrants – within the power of “the state”.
          It is right there – Article 1, Section 8, Fourth power.
          There is a lot of talk about the federal government assuming powers not granted by the Constitution – the welfare state, most often – but the subject if immigration is one that the Founders declared to be in the hands of Congress.
          Don’t like it? Change the Constitution, or leave.

    2. “so many immigration foes”

      I’ll answer your questions once you explain whether that statement was made out of ignorance or mendacity.

      Because being a foe of illegal immigration does not by necessity make you a foe of all immigration. And, assuming you’ve actually been following the conversation here you’d know that many of the people opposed to illegal immigration have expressed support for higher levels of legal immigration.

      1. I call bullshit.
        “Illegal” immigration means nothing more nor less than ‘contrary to legislation’ immigration.
        We all do things, probably daily, that are contrary to legislation.
        I don’t fucking care about whether or not some group congenital morons was able to pass legislation saying this is wrong or that is wrong.
        The challenge remains, what justifies this legislation as law?
        What justifies the state, qua state, interfering?

        Being a critic of ‘illegal immigration’ makes you a fan of denial of critical distinctions.
        Why this violation of legislation matters and others do not remains unaddressed.
        Principled libertarian objections to immigration are missing in action because the default is to deny the critical distinction between violations of law and violations of legislation. A distinction libertarianism seems to rely on.

        1. No rule of law, got it.

          1. No rule of law, got it.

            (snort) When will Fakabrain “get” the Constitution?

        2. The right to free association gives us polity.

          Combine that with property rights and you get borders.

          And that’s just the natural law version of how we get legislation. Legislation that is nothing more than codification of said natural law.

          None of this should come as any surprise to an actual libertarian. Leftitarians are understandably confused when legislative ipse dixit does not match their desired version of ipse dixit. Or “bullshit,” as the case may be.

          1. The right to free association gives us polity.
            Combine that with property rights and you get borders.

            LAME, IRRATIONAL
            Property rights have NOTHING to do with borders.

            1. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. ? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

              1. Missed the italics on do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do…

              2. Totally irrelevant to property rights. The government does not own all land within its borders.
                Independent States superseded by the Constitution

        3. “I call bullshit.”

          And that’s fair enough.

          The point is whether we want open borders or not. If you don’t, then we want at least *some* immigration illegal.

          And I do.

          I want immigration that benefits the mass of US citizens. When it doesn’t, make it illegal, and prevent it.

          Government of, by, and for the people meant US citizens, not everyone in the universe. *For* US citizens.

          It’s strange that this can even be questioned. I always took it as a bedrock principle of representative government that it should represent those governed, and not foreigners.

          1. “Government of, by, and for the people meant US citizens, not everyone in the universe. *For* US citizens”

            And endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights meant what exactly? Was that only for British Colonists?

            1. This is a terrible non sequitur my dude

              1. KIVLOR SAYS “NON SEQUITOR” THAT INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE INHERENT TO ALL OF MANKIND, NOT JUST CITIZENS!

                SCOTUS rulings say he’s full of shit. So does elementary logic. There were no citizens and no nation when the Declaration was ratified

                1. Mikey, Mikey, Mikey…

                  It is a non-sequitur because it was irrelevant to the point. We can get off in the weeds discussing the Declaration if we like, but the Declaration is not the governing document for our nation. It’s the manifesto of those who rebelled against the King.

                  The US Constitution is the governing document.
                  The US Constitution explicitly grants authority to regulate migration and importation of foreigners and slaves after a grace period which has long passed.
                  Neither the US Constitution nor the Declaration recognize the unfettered right of all non-Americans to move to and settle America. One of them explicitly states that it is not their right, and that it is the right of the people of the US to choose representatives to regulate such.
                  Regulation entails making uniform, limiting or even banning the activity.

                  This is not an inalienable right, and any such discussion is an attempt to muddy the waters. I would question the intellect and education of anyone who argues that the Founders would have agreed to such a reading of their statements.

                2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano wouldn’t know a Supreme Court ruling if it shot him in his empty brain pan.

            2. Everyone is endowed with those rights, but the United States of America is not constituted to protect *everyone’s* Liberty.

              “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

              We = The People of the United States
              That’s the “We” relative to the Constitution for the United States of America.

              Not everybody in the world. “Ourselves and our Posterity”. We decide who gets to join our club.

              1. So does the Constitution establish the rights of man?

                1. There is no such thing.
                  Rights are only available when government is there to protect them from someone who has more power, whether physical or political.
                  No man has a right to enter your space and set up shop, there, use your resources and allow others, he decides, should be able to do the same thing.
                  It is the foundation of civilized societies, that personal property be held inviolate, supported by a democratically elected government.
                  Anything else is the law of the jungle.

                  1. “Rights are only available when government is there to protect them”

                    This, on a libertarian site? That rights require government flies in the face of everything we are supposed to believe, right on down from Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, etc.

                    “No man has a right to enter your space and set up shop”

                    On the contrary. EVERY man has a right to enter my property if I allow it. It’s not the governments job to protect me from the boogeymen on the other side of some imaginary line. If I need the government to protect my property, that’s up for me to decide.

                    “that personal property be held inviolate,”

                    Held by whom? You’re advocating that the government can control who has access to private property based on where they were born.

                2. So does the Constitution establish the rights of man?

                  No. The Constitution establishes a government and a nation-state, and grants it certain powers, and denies it others, with such grants and denials made by the governed.

              2. One more time: SCOTUS says otherwise. For selected rights.

              3. buybuy is again totally confused and off-topic.
                It says who created the Constitution, not the rights contained therein.

            3. See above – the closing graph of the DoI. As free an independent States, the US may declare, and defend it’s sovereign borders. The author, and signers didn’t mean non-colonists had no rights, they just meant that one of those rights was not the ability to freely disregarding our right to determine how are borders are controlled.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t like to read.

              2. ^ Citation needed

      2. Under Positive Christianity, Third Reich immigration laws made “Jewish” synonymous with “illegal” just as today’s Republican and Democrat laws make “plant leaves” synonymous with “illegal.” Any questions as to why a “national language” is so important to proponents of Spanish-style fascism? “Illegal” is Newspeak for “thought-criminal,” pure and simple.

        1. Reductio ad Hitlerum

          Bravo!

    3. Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state?

      Authoritarians don’t give a shit about the Constitution. It gets in their way.
      And they CLAIM to be conservatives! (hahahahaha)

      1. Only the galactically stupid believe that the Constitution doesn’t place immigration within the legitimate powers of the federal government.
        Michael Dihm(wit) likes to post links.
        Come up with one where the US government’s right to control its borders was successfully argued as being not within its Constitutional powers.

        1. “Only the galactically stupid”

          Oh really…
          But the Constitution itself ? from which all federal powers derive ? does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.
          – Judge Andrew Napolitano

          “Come up with one where the US government’s right to control its borders was successfully argued as being not within its Constitutional powers.”
          That’s like saying, come up with an argument that says that planning and paying for healthcare, retirement savings, etc isn’t within its Constitutional powers.

          Just admit that your position is for a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution where naturalization = immigration and interstate commerce = the movement of free peoples.

          1. You’ll note that he completely ignores the section of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate the migration and importation of peoples to the US. Which is the explicit power to regulate and control the borders.

            You’ll also note that he’s pretty mistaken in his history. The first immigration law of the US was enacted by the first Congress and limited citizenship to landed white men of good character.

            1. “You’ll note that he completely ignores the section of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate the migration and importation of peoples to the US”

              We’ve been down this path before. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 is completely centered around the slave trade. Not only that, it’s certainly not an enumerated power, but instead a restriction on Congress, which is why it’s found in S9 and not S8.

              I would defy you to find any US case law in which A1S9C1 is invoked in terms of immigration restriction. You can’t, because it’s not relevant. All relevant case law on immigration is centered around the Naturalization and/or Commerce Clause, or the plenary powers of Congress to do whatever they want to “protect sovereignty”.

              1. Leo, it is about more than slavery, which is why it explicitly names importation and migration. Slaves didn’t migrate to the states. Moreover, it specifically limits Congress passing any laws regarding importation and migration of people to the US only until 1808, excepting that importing slaves could be taxed up to $10 per head before 1808.

                The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

                By stating that such legislation cannot be enacted until 1808 the Constitution directly describes the power being limited and recognizes its existence. Add in the preceding Necessary and Proper Clause, and it is quite apparent that they have the right to pass any law necessary to limit who comes into the country.

                I know, you don’t want it to be true that it’s just about slaves. It’s not. There is zero evidence that it is. The words are there to be read by all. This is made obvious by many remarks made by several of the Founding Fathers regarding what should be done with the Negroes. +

                1. Again, I’ve been down this path with loveconstitution1789 before.

                  Wikipedia agrees that A1S9C1 is related to the slave trade:
                  “The first clause in this section prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808.”
                  Additionally, A1S9 is almost always described as a list of limits on Congress, not enumerated powers (section 8). If the founders wanted to include immigration control as an enumerated power, they most likely would have put it in S8.

                  This guy agrees with me also. “The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808.”

                  Even James Madison (you might have heard of him) agrees with me in Federalist No. 42.

                  It were doubtless to be wished that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.

                  1. But the Constitution can be overridden by blowhards merely bellowing.

            2. That’s about slavery. You people are scary.

    4. Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state?

      Probably because it is actually one of the legitimate functions of government.

      Boom. Mind blown.

    5. “Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state?”

      Because we’re not anarchists.

      The US federal government was *constituted* by a group of people to form a more perfect union among themselves. Not with everyone in the universe.

      ” To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

      And sometimes the rule is – “You can’t come here”.

    6. There are borders to country for a reason we do not live in the anarchistic, completely free market that extremist libertarians masturbate over in the shower. We live in the real world.

  9. rebalancing America’s immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration…. to the country, and ramping up the employment-based immigration…

    No one ever explains why this is a bad thing.

    Why is having 66 out of a hundred immigrants possibly unemployed better than having 66 out of a hundred immigrants employed?

    1. Actually, the article did. Folk that come over without being chained to a specific job have note freedom to find the “best fit”, whether that’s a job they already have skills for, getting new skills, starting as business, or whatever.

      You know, that whole “free market > regulated market” thing y’all give lip service to?

      1. So you’re saying that immigrants who come here because someone hired them were simply assigned the job? They were chained to that job by forces outside themselves?

        Or did they didn’t study and work hard in that particular field, then apply and interview to get the job?

        You know, the way the free market ACTALLY works, as opposed to the ‘free’ market that only lives in leftists heads.

        I think that, for decades, you all just said stupid shit, and were the only ones really allowed to say anything, and then when they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine it was all downhill–but you could still delete your pasts so you hung on–now, you can’t even do that, so all your stupid shit is just sitting there, so everyone can look at it and laugh at the idiocies you espouse.

        And you can’t grasp why they’re laughing–after all you’ve got a ‘study’ and some ‘polls’.

        1. And see, whenever you call someone out for being ‘stupid’, the gods of the interwabs strike–

          “You know, the way the free market ACTALLY works, as opposed to the ‘free’ market that only lives in leftists heads.”

          It should, of course, be ‘actually’

        2. So you’re saying that immigrants who come here because someone hired them were simply assigned the job? They were chained to that job by forces outside themselves?
          Nope.

          I’m saying that I, an American, am free to continue shopping around for a better job. If I do so, then I end up in a position better suited for my qualifications and abilities, and the person that ends up being hired to replace me is also in a position better suited, and so-on. So by allowing employees to optimize their job to match their skills, the system as a whole is more efficient.

          An immigrant worker who has their visa tied to a specific job does not have the ability to look for a better job. Their residency is based on their current job. So that optimizing church doesn’t happen.

          So yeah, consider two folks, one who’s brought over on a work visa, and one whos brought over on a “family” visa, in the long-run the “family-visa” is more likely to be more productive because they’re free to optimize. The work-visa person? Can’t optimize.

        3. The US is plenty large enough to have a free market, 320 million people is plenty to try out that experiment, we do not need to let millions and millions of illegal refugees come in and try to set up sharia law neighborhoods. We need to filter those who want to fit in with our culture and western values, not try to pull us back 800 years.

      2. yep nothing keeping them from changing careers once they get here.

  10. “a noble goal of America’s immigration system…”

    Citations needed

    1. Not in the Constitution. You lose

  11. The welfare state is an affront to the liberty of every person who bears the burden of funding it.

    Rewarding people who have already demonstrated a willingness to break the law, even if only one (realistically we know it will be much more) gets added to the dole, is a further insult to liberty.

    1. It also perpetuates a society of leeches and encourages progressivism through coddling and identity politics through attempted government ‘fairness’ through hand outs.

    2. I know no one who is not willing to break the law, some law — as long as by law we mean, which we must in such discussions, legislation.
      You’ve never run a stop light? Failed to participate in a census? ‘Cheated’ on your taxes? Operated a motor vehicle that was not up to legal requirements? Failed to pick up after your dog? The list is endless.

      We all break laws, willingly and frequently. Willingness to break the law, in the sense of legislation, is a moral responsibility, not a moral failing.

      1. The punishment of a speeding ticket is a fine. Pretty much everyone who ever got a ticket has accepted the punishment for a law they knowingly violated. Violating immigration laws has a punishment of deportation. YOu choose to violate those laws, you face the punishment.

        A reductio ad absurdum argument like the one you’re making ends up in intractable logic.

      2. Do they claim no consequences for their choice to violate the law? By what higher authority do they exempt themselves from what others accept?

        Willingness to break law is not, in and of itself, a moral responsibility. The choice is the moral responsibility. Not adequately justifying your choice is indeed a moral failure.

        You, so far, have justified nothing, merely exerted the ability to choose to violate the law.

      3. “We all break laws, willingly and frequently.”
        And when called to account, honorable people accept the punishment that is prescribed by that law, and don’t whine and protest that the law is unfair and demand that their breaking of the law should be rewarded with the gains made through that act.
        And not only their breaking of the law but that the entire population of those who have, along with whatever other laws they have broken to perpetuate their law-breaking, be given a blanket amnesty.

    3. The welfare state is an affront to the liberty of every person who bears the burden of funding it.

      Prove it, goober. Or you’re full of shit

      1. You DON’T think the welfare state is an affront to the liberty of those who are paying for it? And you actually expect him to ‘prove’ it? Whatever that means.

        1. Behold the bulshitting cyber-bully stalker!

          The welfare state is an affront to the liberty of every person who bears the burden of funding it.

          Prove it, goober. Or you’re full of shit

          You DON’T think the welfare state is an affront to the liberty of those who are paying for it? And you actually expect him to ‘prove’ it? Whatever that means.

          Not to “every single person” you lying sack of shit..

          And you actually expect him to ‘prove’ it? Whatever that means.

          I knew SOME goober would fuck it up. But YOU don’t even know what PROOF is, in your brainwashed goober universe??

          Not even true for a majority — let alone unanimous.

          1. Bold face means I’m super serious!

            1. No, it means I’m ridiculing him
              for being a liar

              And you for denying it.

              1. = ridicule

                Got it, crazy person

        2. Behold the bulshitting cyber-bully stalker!

          The welfare state is an affront to the liberty of every person who bears the burden of funding it.

          Prove it, goober. Or you’re full of shit

          You DON’T think the welfare state is an affront to the liberty of those who are paying for it? And you actually expect him to ‘prove’ it? Whatever that means.

          Not to “every single person” you lying sack of shit..

          And you actually expect him to ‘prove’ it? Whatever that means.

          I knew SOME goober would fuck it up. But YOU don’t even know what PROOF is, in your brainwashed goober universe??

          Not even true for a majority — let alone unanimous.

  12. “Migration?” They’re not birds… They don’t go back and forth every year.

    So, regarding illegal immigration: it’s illegal. Punish them for their crime and then send them home.

    Regarding legal immigration: if it helps citizens of the US, than I believe it’s justified. If it doesn’t, the policy needs to be revised.

    Our governments do not exist to help the rest of the world. Our Nuclear missile policy isn’t to hand them out to all foreign nations because “we are the world.” Our patents and technology aren’t handed out freely to the world because “Kumbai.”

    Why should our citizenship be handed because of your feels?

    How many words in this article are about THE FEELZ?

    1. Re: migration

      Funny story, we actually *did* have migration on the southern border. Folks came over for seasonal agricultural jobs, then returned home when the season was done.

      It wasn’t until we got stricter on “border security” decades ago that seasonal laborers stopped returning home, and started bringing their families over and transitioned from being a “migrational workforce” to an “immigrant workforce”.

    2. “Punish them for their crime and then send them home.”

      And send a bill for the costs their stay in the US have incurred to their home countries.

    3. mi?gra?tion
      [m???r?SH(?)n]
      NOUN
      movement of people to a new area or country in order to find work or better living conditions.
      “the extensive rural-to-urban migration has created a severe housing shortage”

      1. Invader

        Pronunciation
        IPA(key): /?n.?ve?.d?(?)/
        Rhymes: -e?d?(?)
        NOUN
        1.) One who invades; an assailant; an encroacher; an intruder.
        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invader

        My personal favorite-

        Invasive species

        An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species

    4. “So, regarding illegal immigration: it’s illegal. Punish them for their crime and then send them home.”
      It is not, really punishment. It simply returns the situation to what it was, before the law was broken.
      It would be as if a bank robber, if he returned all the money, was allowed to go on his way.
      Or is it the proposition of the open-borders crowd that everyone, not living in the United States, is being punished?
      As for the “dreamers”: We don’t allow the children of the bank-robber to keep the money he stole, or anything he bought with said money. Their gains from their parent’s law-breaking, as far as can be achieved, should not be allowed to continue, let alone rewarded, through granting them a benefit that those, whose parents didn’t break the law, cannot claim.

    1. Go home Shikha! Go GTFO tReason

      1. Deport Shikha!

        1. See? Elias Fakabrain exposes his fascism. PROUDLY
          (puke)

          1. Fascism is one of marxism’s bastard children, therefore a product of the left. I am not a leftist, so by definition I am incapable of being a fascist.By your previous observation, I am apparently a ‘right wing goober’, which is mutually exclusive with being a fascist.

            So if you’re going to engage in more of the cyber bullying you rage against, towards me, at least be consistent about it.

            1. PROUD to be a fascist

              (These aRe both the same sockpuppet)

              Deport Shikha!

              See? Elias Fakabrain exposes his fascism. PROUDLY (puke)

              Fascism is one of marxism’s bastard children, therefore a product of the left

              Evasion AND bullshit

              DEPORTING SOMEONE FOR EXCERCISING REE SPEECH IS FASCISM.

              **SHAME**ON**YOU**

              1. Words have actual definitions, and deporting subversives is irrelevant to fascism. Fascism is also not ‘anything Michael doesn’t like’.

                Also, not a sock. I explained this aways above. I have repeatedly acknowledged both user names are the same person. It isn’t a deception or a trick. Now was anyone ever supposed to think otherwise. It relates to an account glitch when using my laptop. I’m not motivated enough to fix it. So learn to deal.

                1. Sockpuppet does NOT mean deception
                  And fascism is EITHER left or right

              2. Bold, capitals, and asterisks too!

                I’m super duper serious now!

                Really! I’m not some old crank from 90s usenet recently thawed and let loose on the internet!

                1. Has Mikey started ranting about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie yet? Maybe if we hang in there a bit he will start in on the exploitation of the masses.

              3. (These aRe both the same sockpuppet)

                ::Later posts as John Galt is Back and David Nolan::

              4. YAWN.

                Oh look everyone. Mikey is ranting again.

  13. Hans Hermann-Hoppe discusses immigration and property rights.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hojvT_BDlxQ

  14. A Shikha article from the title alone!

  15. Reason is just trolling the commentariat, it’s how they get their laughs while waiting for the blue wave come November.

    1. That blue wave better borrow some cash quick. The DNC is flat broke and has some debts they can’t pay on hop,of it. GOP has $40 million in the bank and no debt.

      1. I love how that works out too. The Dems are broke, and the Rs (as fucked as they are!) are debt free and have money in the bank, DESPITE raising less money during the last cycle.

  16. “According to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of government data, it can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to gain entry and pull in the next link in the “chain.” Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards. If the wife wished to bring her siblings over, the quickest route would be for her to become naturalized, too, which would take five years. Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they’d be middle aged!”

    I wan’t aware that (i) everyone on Earth was somehow entitled to live in the United States or (ii) streamlining/reforming/improving our lawful immigration problem wasn’t possible.

    “Hence, America can’t stop what nativists call “mass immigration” without breaking up nuclear families.”

    Well, shit, then let everyone in! What other choice do we have? The science is settled!

    1. I wan’t aware that (i) everyone on Earth was somehow entitled to live in the United States o

      I wasn’t aware anyone could be fucking stupid enough to see that in what you cited.

      1. Look up what ‘exponential’ means, it might help with understanding.

        1. BYODB
          i wan’t aware that (i) everyone on Earth was somehow entitled to live in the United States

          I wasn’t aware anyone could be fucking stupid enough to see that in what you cited.

          Look up what ‘exponential’ means, it might help with understanding.

          I wasn’t aware anyone could be so fucking stupid … AND such a massive bullshitter

          Oh wait, it’s BYODB …

          1. I wasn’t aware anyone could be so fucking stupid

            You see one in the mirror every day.

      2. Don’t sell yourself short Mikey. If anyone here knows fucking stupid from the inside, it has to be you.

  17. now it takes 45 years to become legal. outlandish numbers that disagree with all others need to be backed up.

    Chain migration is very real.

    1. A little anecdotal info on chain migration.
      My friends neighbor became legal. So then he brought in his parents, isn’t that nice, anyway they are over 65 so they automatically now get Social Security checks from a system they never paid into. Meanwhile i’ll be lucky if I ever get to collect.

      1. You’re lying.

        Shikha says it takes 20 years to get legal, and then 20 more to get anyone else in.

        Your neighbors parents would be dead by then.

        See the sarc? See the cradle?

      2. Ronnie’s complaint is an indictment of Farther Charles E. Coughlin’s “Little Flower” radio sermons pushing onto the FDR Administration the “generous old-age pension” Adolf Hitler put in the National Socialist platform of 1920. Repealing the income tax would be the way to correct matters. Instead, Coughlin’s Gee-Oh-Pee admirers demand: “a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion” copied from the Prohibition Party platform published after the 1972 LP Plank became the Roe v. Wade decision. If the Prohibition and Republican party fascisti had their way the earth’s population would be 14 billions all trying to get into These States to escape Teetotalitarian financial collapse everywhere on the globe–and finding conditions even worse here!

        1. Is there some kind of shortage of staying-marginally-off-the-lunatic-fringe medication?
          So many, here, displaying the symptoms of the mental disorder that is liberalism/progressivism/communism.

          WHERE ARE THE 0BLAMOCARE MEDS WHEN WE NEED THEM?

    2. now it takes 45 years to become legal.

      Try again when you’re sober.

      1. That was satire.

        1. You are THREE sockpuppets?

          1. No, but his comment was clearly satirical. I’m not sure why it would occur to you to take it literally, especially considering the overall level of statical commentary and sarcasm generally expressed by the commentariat here.

            1. Why?
              Because, just as the comment was clearly satirical, Michael Dihm(wit) is clearly a nut-case.

              1. Now, now, now, let’s be nice to Mikey.

                After all, he is NOT useless. Even Mikey is useful as a bad example.

                And besides, if he wasn’t ranting here with boldface and italics, he would be ranting on a street corner somewhere with a bull horn. Accosting passers by and generally being an even larger nuisanse than he is here.

  18. >Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards.

    And yet….

    >family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country,

    1. Yup. They literally discredit their own argument, with their own facts, in the same article. GENIUS!

  19. >Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards.

    And yet….

    >family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country,

  20. “People should only be allowed to cross the imaginary line if they wade through 20 years of government bullshit first” – a bunch of libertarians

    1. “You have no say in whether your country imports statists to the voting booth to take away the freedoms you have left” – a bunch of libertarians

    2. Imaginary lines ….. like the property line of your home for example. Damn these imaginary lines!

      1. Hey hey hey Mag, no fences on those imaginary lines now. If people want to cross an imaginary line you have no right to interfere!

  21. Aw geez, this will unleash the trolling goobers.
    Trumpsters bellowing their hatred.
    Shouting down differing views … like their fellow snowlfakes on the left
    The Politically Correct, Authoritarian Right.

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. You keep listing the hypocrisies and absurdities of the right and then include that as part of your thesis that both left and right are equally dumb.

      Don’t you think that would be a rather implausible coincidence?

      Left – right = good god we have some competent governance for a change!

      1. Drink Drano you totalitarian wannabe.

      2. Tony INSISTS on seeing the stupid Left!!

        —- Reagan vs Obama

        Reagan’s stock market was still crashing to 70%. Obama’s had rebounded to -46%
        http://observationsandnotes.bl…..story.html

        Reagan tax policy began with 10.8% unemployment, down to 5.8% in TWO years. Obama’s stimulus began with 8.3% unemployment, INCREASED to 10.0%, was 9.8% after two years and took 69 months to hit 5.8%
        http://research.stlouisfed.org…..UNRATE.txt

        (limit 2 links per post) cont’d

        1. Part 2 of 3

          Reagan inherited the highest prime-rate ever at 21.5% Obama at 3.25%
          http://www.fedprimerate.com/wa…..istory.htm

          Reagan began with a far worse recession, but in his first 4 years, real GDP had increased 12.6%. Obama’s first four years saw only 3.3% TOTAL.
          http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTab…..ri=1&903=6

          (cont’d)

          1. Part 3/3

            Now compare business cycles, http://nber.org/cycles.html, with prime rates. Libruls claim the recovery was launched by the Fed lowering interest rates, The recession ended in Nov, 1982, with the Prime Rate at 11.5%. Never saw single digits until June, 1985 — just shy of three years into the recovery — and did not see historic averages until December of 1991 (6.5%).

    2. Did someone order trolling goobers?

      1. They travel on their own.

    3. It is truly amazing that the fellow who posts 80% of the time in Boldface, with deprecating attacks on other posters, accuses others of shouting down differing views.

      But I am glad you are here Mikey. I am reminded that every moment you camp out here being abusive, is a moment you are not being abusive to someone in person.

  22. ” the U.S. system admits only 2?2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents”

    and then

    “America’s immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country”

    which is it. Does chain migration hardly admit anyone, or does it account for 2/3 of all immigrants? If it’s 2/3 then yes it needs to change. Focus on skills

    1. Are you actualty THAT stupid on elementary math?
      Must be a Trumptard.

    2. Krone, the first number is a non sequitur meant to throw you off. Chain migration exists via family reunification. It accounts for the vast majority of permanent resident immigrants. It takes 5 years to be able to sponsor 3 family members. Then 5 years for them to do the same.

      Indian guy moves here. 5 years and he’s got a green card. Now he’s eligible for reunification. Picks wife and his parents. 5 years and now his siblings and inlaws are here. 1 immigrant became 12

  23. Those who advocate for open borders have the difficult job of ensuring that all, or most, of American labor protection laws are voided while also giving themselves the awesome task of dismantling the system of welfare and benefits that flow from the FedGov via taxation. Y’know, so we’re back on the same footing we were on when the Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886?

    It’s a monumental task, but I note that Dalmia is there on the front lines suggesting…none of the above.

    Weird, it’s almost as if she’s in favor of bankrupting American taxpayers at a faster rate than it’s already occurring based on feel-good story telling.

    I’ll take people like Dalmia seriously once they’re able to actually recognize second or third order consequences of their ‘feels based’ legislation. I never see her mention the fact that most of these illegal aliens wouldn’t be technically qualified for a job that only requires a high school education. Bizarre, right? But hey, those lawns aren’t going to mow themselves and that roof over your head isn’t going to repair itself right?

    Those with an education are more likely to go through the legal process since they have job skills America wants. Low skill immigrant labor is only valuable in immigrants because the welfare state isn’t taking care of them already, so unlike American born low-education low-skill labor they must actually work instead of receive transfer payments.

    1. Shikha should be deported as a subversive. The balls on this bitch for come into my country and telling us who we have to let in like this. Fuck her, she needs to go.

      1. She’s a citizen, as far as I know, so deportation shouldn’t ever be on the table as far as I’m concerned.

        She’s not a ‘subversive’ in my opinion because it seems that she lacks the intelligence to realize what the end-game would be for her own policy preferences. It’s ignorance with her, and frankly it’s the same story with most of the people who advocate for ‘free borders’ absent all of the plethora of things that need to be reversed to make it even conceptually workable.

        There have been almost 100 years of ‘reform’ that have made open borders untenable. If you want those reforms, then you are not serious about open borders. If nothing else, that should be your takeaway.

        1. I don’t think any of us have any idea if Shitma is a US citizen or not. I don’t think she is a subversive. I just think she is stupid. She is not merely ignorant, because attempts have been made to educate here. Therefore, based on the definition of stupid (ignorance that cannot be corrected) she is stupid.

      2. The fake name sockpuppet repeats the Comstock law of 1873 with its confiscation and burning of “obscene and disloyal” literature. Gosh… how original!

        1. Hey jackass, I’m not a ‘sockpuppet’. This is pretty much how I post unless I’m on my laptop and I post as Las of the Shitlords’. Which I have frequently, and openly disclosed. So not a sock. And the only reason I keep that one is due to an account glitch keeping me from logging in as Elias on my laptop.

          Clear enough for you? If so, you can go back to babbling about abortion intermittently. Even though this article isn’t about abortion.

      3. Behold the raging fascism of a typical Trumptard, Eklias Fakabrain

        Shikha should be deported as a subversive.

        FEAR the traitors.who walk among us.

        1. “FEAR the traitors.who walk among us.”

          I’m not exactly ‘afraid’ of Shikha, but she is an annoying subversive who needs to go. Amd while we’re on the subject of traitors who walk among us, I would like to give a shout out to Tony.

          1. Fascist TRAITOR defends his demand to repeal free speech.
            The authoritarian right is a disgrace to true conservatism
            Left – Right = Zero

            1. Free speech does have a few carve outs. Treason and sedition are among them. You are free to disagree .

              1. Free speech does have a few carve outs. Treason and sedition are among them. You are free to disagree .

                Neither of which applies here..
                You are free to be a bulshitter

    2. The LP platform advocates getting rid of Comstock laws (and Roe v Wade was our victory there), the 1848 Communist Manifesto income tax, and much of the other looter legislation the National Socialist “right” and International Socialist “left” enacted to create the situation both brands of communo-fascist altruism caused in the first place. Yet instead of voting for the only platform written to undo the damage, these illiterate bipartisan cretins flock here to splatter us with their ordure-throwing tantrums. Our 4 million LP spoiler votes must be severing some pretty large arteries on both sides of the Altrurian aisle.

      1. Yes, but it starts to appear disingenuous when people like Dalmia only talk about immigration in isolation. It amounts to lying about the means to people to get to those ends.

        Essentially Dalmia only wants to talk about the warm and fuzzy parts of ‘immigration reform’ instead of the part where welfare benefits are ‘taken away’ from those poor American’s that don’t have enough skills to meet even minimum wage jobs.

        The list literally goes on and on of things that severely hamper the end-goal of ‘open immigration’ that are never, ever talked about in her articles and I can only assume she doesn’t talk about those things because they get in the way of her narrative and because those things are overwhelmingly more popular to the electorate than dreaming babies.

        To put in the most straight forward terms, American’s like their transfer payments and labor protections a whole lot more than illegal immigrants. That’s from all sectors of society, too, not some fringe of wing-nuts in either party (we’re the fringe wing-nuts in this scenario). If they aren’t willing to get rid of the former, well then I’m sorry you don’t get the latter. That’s just how it works, and to think otherwise is to believe in unicorns.

        1. BYOBD
          To put in the most straight forward terms, American’s like their transfer payments and labor protections a whole lot more than illegal immigrants

          You are MASSIVELY of shit … even Fox says so!

          Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
          86% want citizenship for dreamers
          83%f for ALL illegals working here.
          ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

          Anything else?

          1. I have something else. A much more recent poll showing that 65% of the country is with Trump on DACA. The source poll is linked within the article. All 111 pages of it

            https://tinyurl.com/y93m8wxt

            So now you can stop spamming that old poll from September. America is with Trump.

            Anything else? And please, no bullying.

            1. More fucking lies from Elias Fakabrain

              that 65% of voters overall agreed with Trump’s position that any bill codifying Obama-era protections for illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children should be accompanied by funding for a wall, ending chain migration, and ending the diversity visa lottery program.

              For the mentally deranged. that says Americans SUPPORT DACA.

              Nothing I posted says ANYTHING about the wall, as proven here
              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122162
              Sick fucks never stop being psycho

              1. As you posted, they ONLY support DACA if, in addition to the wall, we get an end to chain migration, and an end to the lottery system. Which is the meat of what Trump offered. Are you now saying you are supporting Trump’s immigration plan? Also, that you never mention the wall in one of your hundred of rambling posts does not make me a ‘psycho’.

                1. As you posted, they ONLY support DACA

                  Pathetic piece of shit liar.
                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7122162
                  But a typical Trumpkin

                  Trump did say his supporters would stand by him, even if he shot somebody to death in broad daylight, with witnesses … so he called them mindless puppets. totally devoid of any moral sense, totally lacking in ANY shame … and they stood by him!

                  So we may never know how low they are willing to sink into the gutter, for their Exalted Leader.

                2. Also, that you never mention the wall in one of your hundred of rambling posts does not make me a ‘psycho’.

                  MORE than a psycho, since you just ADMITTED your poll was total bullshit regarding what you NOW admit I never said! (pees pants laughing)

                  You’re not ready for the adult table, sonny

                  Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

                  Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

                  psychopath
                  1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
                  2. The Authoriarian Right
                  3. The Authoriarian Left

                  Left – Right = Zero

                  (sneer)

          2. Please stop posting ‘evidence’ that I’ve already answered in prior posts Hihn.

            ‘Polls’ and/or ‘Surveys’ are, at best, educated guesswork and that is when considering them in a purely mathematical framework before you even start to address the phrasing of the questions or the specific methodology used.

            Your poll shows that among those who were polled (less than 2000 people) 83% of people support something that already exists. There already is a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for illegal immigrants, and we know this because there are legal immigrants. That’s basic reasoning, so it’s weird your evidence has a major disconnect unless it’s an error on your part in providing evidence that in no way lines up with your assertion.

            Impossible, I’m sure.

            Polls are what people quote when they can’t find data; or reason themselves. It has all the tanginess of a point without any of the thinking.

            1. Please stop posting ‘evidence’ that I’ve already answered in prior posts Hihn.

              Where? Mere assertions don’t count. And his “evidence” is off-topic. Plus he confuses NEW immigrants with those already here (sneer)

              1. And you confuse a very limited poll with some kind of proof postive evidence about how the whole country feels, as you spammed hundreds of times recently over dozens of articles. Like it was some decree from God Almighty.

                You could show some clarity here and admit you are wrong and apologize to everyone.

          3. Mikey, saying stupid things in boldface, does not make them any more correct or believable. But carry on if it makes you happy.

  24. Could U ,w/your impressive psychic powers,tell me how2tell when the president”barks” or when he may be “bleating?”UR predjudiced comments about our President lumps UR telling comments N2’loco liberal Trumpzihrenia’ category.Illegal immigrants have been shoved onto Americans who want 2Bfair yet R struggling w/the liberal idea there should B no border,laws,citizenship,or accountability 4any1who wants what Americans have.We struggle cuz theres recent machinations 2flood countries w/troubled immigrants.Why?Could globalist think if we take care of them,they will automatically fall in line and be greatful?It doesn’t work that way.TheseR different cultures. Whenever different cultures R put N w/another 2compete w/resources,&have1part; of the political Sphere telling the masses they R disenfranchised should demand even more-well UC what’s happening.No 1wants strife.We can’t keep flooding our country w/needy folk all@once2 fill a imagined quota.Yes,there R those who want 2work.Americans Rjust now getting jobs,we can’t support those who can’t,why bring more here?ThereR entire families W/children living N streets homeless!It’s always the rich that R the 1s hollering 4no borders,responsibility,registration,etc.,wonder why?Most their houses already have walls around them(as does Obama’s new million dollar mansion)and security cameras2protect theirselves from the unwashed masses,yes?

      1. He can’t do it in English because he is trying to track Shitma’s tortured prose.

  25. Chain migration helps bring in nearly a million new statists every year. What libertarian wouldn’t be on board with that?

      1. Perhaps he is a statist. His statement is however, correct.

    1. To be fair it’s probably something like 800,000 new statists. There’s probably about 20% that aren’t. But they’re drastically outnumbered, and democracy is a numbers game.

  26. The GOP Police State takes a BIG hit.
    Six Republicans have voted with Democrats to release the Democrat rebuttal. And shove it up Trump’s ass.

    1. Interestingly, I don’t recall Trump expressing an opinion on the Democrat talking piece that defends the Deep State.

      I also had not realized that in your vaunted status as SUPER-LIBERTARIAN MAN, that defending the authoritarian deep state was one of your duties.

      Huh, who knew.

      1. Open borders are a tactic toward a Police State

        It’s most obvious in Europe

  27. Republicans bail on Trump … vote UNANIMOUSLY to release the Democrat rebuttal. Final straw may have been when even TREY GOWDY announced as one one six Republicans would vote with Democrats for full release .

    When they lost Gowdy, the other Republicans would have been twisting in the wind, all alone

    (This action also HUMILIATES Sevo, Last of he Shitloards, Sammi and Elias Fakabrain, among other right-wing goobers.)

    Left – Right = Zero
    (snort)

  28. For some actual facts on immigration, see
    https://www.uscis.gov/family

    Refugees and asylees can bring over spouse and children
    Green Card holders can bring over spouse, unmarried children
    US citizens can bring over spouse, children, parents, siblings

    Apparently you can apply for citizenship, which takes 6-12 months of processing, after you’ve lived in the US with your green card for 5 years. If you’re married to a US citizen, that reduces the wait period to 3 years.

    It would be nice to see an article that honestly analyzed the timelines for chain migration, instead of the incessant Shikha lies.

    1. Speaking of liars, Trump’s own party has jammed it up his ass. But you already knew that!

      1. Mike, I’m trying to figure out how to bold my terrible, waste-of-space posting – can teach this young grasshopper how to do so?

        1. < b > starts bold — close the brackets tight to the b
          < /b > ends the nold

          Likewise for italics
          < i > and < /i >

          To do a quotation, like this
          < blockquote >
          < /blockquote >

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t realize he’s being mocked.

            1. Part of what makes him so comical

  29. Republicans bail on Trump … vote UNANIMOUSLY to release the Democrat rebuttal. Final straw may have been when even TREY GOWDY announced as one one six Republicans would vote with Democrats for full release .

    (This action also HUMILIATES Sevo, Last of he Shitloards, Sammi, damikesc Elias Fakabrain, and other trolling puppets .)

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. Jeezus, you’re such a spammer. Can’t you PLEASE stop posting the same shit over and over again.

      Anyway, I’m GLAD they’re releasing the Dem memo. They ALSO need to release the underlying documents so we can see what it’s all about without partisan spin. I have a feeling the FBI was being shady, so I fear nothing from full transparency. If I’m wrong then so be it. I believe in the truth coming out either way.

      1. Trey Gowdy says you’re full of shit.

        Donald Trump says you cannot be trusted — would KNOWINGLY defend him if he killed somebody in broad daylight, with witnesses.. Openly RIDICULING you.

        NOW you deny everything you originally said here … when the evidence was a CENSORED memo, that even Republicans now reject as vindicating Trump.

        And humiliating news is … SPAM … to Trump’s army of kiss-ass trolls, in severe denial as it all collapses around you.

        1. I am searching for your point … and how it relates to the other posts.

          Let me see…

          “I’m GLAD they’re releasing the Dem memo. They ALSO need to release the underlying documents so we can see what it’s all about without partisan spin. I have a feeling the FBI was being shady, so I fear nothing from full transparency. If I’m wrong then so be it. I believe in the truth coming out either way.”

          How does that relate to …

          “Trey Gowdy says you’re full of shit.

          Donald Trump says you cannot be trusted — would KNOWINGLY defend him if he killed somebody in broad daylight, with witnesses.. Openly RIDICULING you.

          NOW you deny everything you originally said here … when the evidence was a CENSORED memo, that even Republicans now reject as vindicating Trump.

          And humiliating news is … SPAM … to Trump’s army of kiss-ass trolls, in severe denial as it all collapses around you.”

          Mikey, when you compare the two posts … do you seem as stupid to yourself and you do to the rest of us?

          1. I imagine he doesn’t notice! I basically agreed that it is good that the Dem memo may come out, and I hope for even greater transparency. But because he is SO SURE that I’m just some blind Trump following moron, he doesn’t even notice that I usually have either a viewpoint that agrees with him on SOME stuff, or at least a far more nuanced view than a line towing idiot. But he’s just out looking for windmills to tilt at, so windmills he will find! LOL

  30. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  31. “Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here.”

    Problem is almost everybody in the world would be better off working at a McDonalds here, versus doing quite well in their home country. They could still be better off, all the while they’re bringing down the average income in the USA, and putting strain on tax payers. Even our native born poor are net negatives for taxes paid in versus taken. Just school/roads etc puts them way in the hole. This has to be supported by Americans with good jobs. FAIL.

    “National Science Foundation, examined three decades of census data and found no difference in the final earnings of foreigners sponsored by family members vs. those sponsored by employers.”

    I don’t believe this for ONE SECOND. There is no way in hell that the statistically average Somali with waaaay less than a highschool education averages the same as an Indian programmer, German engineer, or Chinese doctor. Or a Somali doctor for that matter, as there must be a few!

    I’ve seen stats on some of these immigrant groups, like Haitians. Their unemployment rate was around 20%, their average income was less than half the US average IIRC. That is total horseshit.

  32. The bottom line is this Cosmotarians: Sometimes you have to choose between real world outcomes vs principles.

    They don’t always line up nicely where it’s all good vs all bad. The practical outcomes of this will be highly negative for liberty in this country. So you have to ask yourself: “Is feeling good for doing what I think is the moral thing worth destroying every other freedom I hold dear?” Because that’s the choice.

    Also, I hate how people pretend like NOT letting somebody into the US is tantamount to murdering them or something. There’s nothing immoral about somebody having to stay in their home country! If we were comparing letting people in versus machine gunning them and bulldozing their bodies into ditches that’d be one thing… But simply not allowing them in, it’s not wrong or mean or immoral in any way. The 21st century doesn’t need manual labor, so we should only be letting in educated people. Period. One 100K a year worker is a trillion times more of a net taxpayer than a 25K a year worker, given that the 25K person takes more in benefits than they pay in, and the reverse is true for the 100K a year guy. Every 25K a year person that comes in will REQUIRE a higher tax rate on everybody else. It’s bullshit.

    1. “The bottom line is this Cosmotarians: Sometimes you have to choose between real world outcomes vs principles.”

      If your principles lead to the real world destruction of your principles, that’s a sign that you haven’t thought through your principles.

      “Thou shalt not coerce” is clerico libertarianism, a religious Thou Shalt Not.

      It fails to take into account that not all interactions are voluntary. No one consulted me about Hihn being on this planet. I would have declined.

      That involuntariness is baked in, as is a lot of other involuntariness. The trick is to maximize liberty in the face of that involuntariness. Those who wash their hands of dealing with that involuntariness to create and preserve Liberty are free riders on those who don’t, all the while puffing themselves up with moral preening about their ideological purity. They are pacifists in the fight between liberty and tyranny.

      Anarchists have the same problem communists do – the question “how is that supposed to work?” Because their plans don’t work. The best mankind has been able to come up with to defend liberty involves states, and laws, and police. And borders.

      Libertarianism will exist where it can defend and does itself. If Libertarians refuse to defend it because muh principles, it will cease to exist.

      1. I agree with pretty much all of that!

        “They are pacifists in the fight between liberty and tyranny.” is so true. Being a free nation, in a world of oppressive ones, requires keeping up your guard, and fighting the good fight, it doesn’t just happen. Libertarians think somehow it’ll all just work out magically, despite all evidence to the contrary. Keeping liberty has always been an intentional act historically speaking, it never just happens.

        Liberty exists in the USA specifically because people fought, and KILLED, to make it happen. If the founding fathers had just sat on their asses and said “Yeah King George is a total dick, but you know that NAP says I’m not allowed to kill people to provide a better life for myself and my progeny… Oh well! Muh principles!” Then we’d be slaves still. No free speech, no gun rights, we’d have a Queen on our money still! I’m GLAD they killed people to create this great nation.

        Fortunately we don’t have to kill anybody, we just have to control our borders a bit, and hopefully educate all the people already here a bit better, and we might be able to hold onto it. But that’ll never happen if we have an endless stream of new people from non free nations. At least not without an ideological purity test for citizenship, which of course open borders people would also oppose.

        1. When people immigrate, their politics immigrates with them.

  33. If Chain Migration is a myth, then there should be no problems whatsoever with ending the policy.

    1. ZING! Exactly. If soooo few people use it, why not cancel it… And if tons of people are using it, then the criticisms have at least some merit.

    2. You need to find a 12-year-old to explain this to you,
      The myth is not that exists … else we wouldn’t have to end it! Too complex for some, including MJBinAL. Whereas vek says ZING! Exactly — then descibes the exact opposite.

      The myths are the lies about it, proclaimed by the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.
      Perhaps even a 10-year-old.

  34. And since a Wall won’t do anything, there is no reason not to build one and prove that.

    1. Behold the IQ of a typical Trumpster!

      And since a Wall won’t do anything, there is no reason not to build one and prove that.

      AND THEY BREED

      1. Behold the lack of an argument.

        1. The ridicule is self-evident — to anyone with an IQ greater than about 75

          1. Also self evident that ridicule is not an argument – at least to anyone with an IQ greater than about 75

          2. Also self evident that ridicule is not an argument – at least to anyone with an IQ greater than about 75

  35. Oh look everyone … SHITMA is back. YAWN.

  36. Fox NEWS division humiliates Trumptards AGAIN! New video, “Who Is Carter Page” REMINDS us of Page’s many years of contacts with Russians, INCLUDING his admission of giving information to Russian intelligence, AND resigning the Trump team because of Russian contacts

    This comes ON TOP of Trey Gowdy calling out Trumptard lies about the FISA warrant … as they scurry like rats to DENY all their prior conspiracy hysteria on this very page … and ALL Republicans now refusing to support Trump’s phony “vindication” …even John Kelly saying the Nunes memo DOES NOT vindicate Trump. (sneer)

    This leaves Trumptards twisitng in the wind, along with their doomed Presdient . Sad.
    But hysterically funny to watch.

    (Once again, I link to HARD PROOF and they can only sneer and bully, like their Exalted Leader.

  37. Reminder: Fox NEWS division ALREADY humiliated the Trumpsters on illegals
    Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

    86% want citizenship for dreamers
    83%f for ALL illegals working here.
    ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

    Add this to their LATEST dumbfuckery. that :”Naturalization” in the Constitution means immigration (snort) — which is NOWHERE in the Constitution, mind controlled puppets.

    nat?u?ral?i?za?tion
    [?naCH(?)r?l??z?SH?n, ?naCH(?)r??l??z?SH?n]
    NOUN

    Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country

    Dancing on a string for The Donald … EXACTLY like the dancing Obamabots for Barry (smirk)

  38. “Reason”: Let everybody in. “Reason” isn’t very reasonable at all on this issue, I guess the left “libertarians” don’t care if the illegal immigrants flood and clog the welfare and medical systems, fill the prisons and violate private property rights by crossing over said property when their breaking the law crossing the border. Unfettered immigration is not good, in fact, “Reason” has this fancy notion that the south of the border folks will all become libertarians if they come into the country when the opposite has be proven every time. The illegals vote for the party that erodes freedom and gives them more benefits. So it explain to me “Reason”, how is it that a majority of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants support the party i.e. the Democrats that give them free stuff?

    1. Yeah, we fuckers are big on individual liberty. And against hysteria. Tell me the most immigrants that have entered in a single year.

      Illegals don’t vote (in THIS country), nor does any libertarian think Mexicans will become libertarian by entering this country, If they match Americans on GENERAL political values, then a majority are already libertarian – fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

      So it explain to me “Reason”, how is it that a majority of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants support the party i.e. the Democrats that give them free stuff?

      Is it the free stuff, or the GOP being as hateful to them as … you? … WAY out of step with voters.

      My turn. Tell me why a HUGE majority of Americans want Dreamers to have a path to citizenship — including 63% of Trump voters. THAT poll is of course by a liberal rag and no doubt SLIGHTLY biased

      Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
      86% want citizenship for dreamers
      83%f for ALL illegals working here.
      ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers

      So, why do Americans so STRONGLY oppose deporting illegals already working here? Why are they Democrats? I just told you

      1. “Yeah, we fuckers are big on individual liberty.”

        No you’re not. You’re big on moral preening.

        The people who are big on liberty want to defend it.

        1. One must first know what liberty is. The two core virtues are non-aggression and tolerance, especially toward opposing viewpoints.

          And it’s NOT puppet-like loyalty to a corrupt political entity, nor aggression, nor bullying , nor lack of civility.
          Nor is it left or right, ESPECIALLY neither extreme. For nearly 50 years now.. Because left and right are obsolete. And Left – Right = Zero
          ,
          Verbal Aggressiveness …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

          Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

          Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

          psychopath
          1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
          2. The Authoriarian Right
          3. The Authoriarian Left

      2. Wrong again Hihn! Polling shows Mexican immigrants (of the legal variety I would imagine?) are far more in favor of big government than native born Americans according to surveys. They answer YES to wanting a “Bigger government that provides more services” when most natives answer NO. They came here, voted left, and THEN the Republicans got all huffy about it… Not the other way around. Incidentally, every other immigrant group other than the highly self selected Cubans do the same thing.

        You can argue the principle of absolute freedom of movement all you want, but the reality is going to give you the exact opposite of what any libertarian really wants in every other area.

        Is this one minor value worth giving up everything else for??? I don’t think so. It’s not immoral for someone to have to stay in their home country, or, GASP actually immigrate legally by proving they actually have some value to bring to the table that’s more than being a janitor… Sometimes you have to CHOOSE what principles to stand up for and at WHAT TIME. These things matter in the real world. Being 100% principled all the time will get you killed in some situations. The NAP strictly applied in a zombie apocalypse isn’t going to aid in your survival for long, ya dig?

        1. Wrong again Hihn!

          (snort)
          Not remotely relevant to what I said.
          You SCREECH that 86% of Americans AND Fox News are wrong,
          Because bellowing again,

          You can argue the principle of absolute freedom of movement all you want,

          (snort)
          1) Has nothing to do with what I said …
          2) .. which was about illegals

          Perhaps if you hadn’t ignored the questions, the thought process would have (perhaps) kept you somewhat … sentient.

          1) My turn. Tell me why a HUGE majority of Americans want Dreamers to have a path to citizenship — including 63% of Trump voters. THAT poll is of course by a liberal rag and no doubt SLIGHTLY biased

          2) So, why do Americans so STRONGLY oppose deporting illegals already working here? Why are they Democrats? I just told you

          #2 Jammed it up your ass., before you began bellowing

          1. Ugh. I’d be OKAY with letting DACA kids slide, but only if we fix the problem going forward. As for polling, I don’t care what polls say. Lots of people are idiots, so what does it matter what percentage thinks what? I was talking about how you’re WRONG that Mexicans are on the same page as current citizens. They’re more likely to favor big government. That’s showed up in every poll for eons.

            Beyond that I’m done with you in this thread. You just keep reposting the same irrelevant crap over and over, and don’t even substantially respond to anything most of the time. Plus this is fucking a dead thread anyway!

  39. Attacking people who rightfully criticize diversity lottery and chain migration as,”Nativists,” is the typical left-wing trope. No one argues that spouses and minor children should be allowed to come as well. But the idea of allowing adult children, parents, and siblings (and by extension their adult children, parents, and siblings) because one initial person has a valuable skill or hell just won a lottery is insanity. The welfare regime has obliterated the self-selective immigration process that rigorously assimilated people culturally. Whether you like it or not sovereign country’s have the right and obligation to be picky with the immigrants they allow in and be constantly studying their contributions, whether it be the economy or welfare rolls to adjust it as needed. Libertarians value dissenting opinions, and with your demagogic, fact-devoid rants you Mam are no Libertatian.

    1. Attacking people who rightfully criticize diversity lottery and chain migration as,”Nativists,” is the typical left-wing trope.

      Your right-wing trope is to lie about left-wing trope. Because you’re both authoritarian. Warring tribes

      Libertarians value dissenting opinions

      We tolerant them.

      you Mam are no Libertatian.

      How would you know?

      Left – Right = Zero

  40. I think there is considerable evidence of cultural endangerment like in Europe. Look at what is happening in Germany, gaining a huge number of refugees hasn’t helped them at all and is bring out right wing party kooks with their hysteria and also is bringing in a population that thinks western values are to be undone and sharia law put in place. i don’t want that for the USA. I want controlled immigration, but I would like to see it increase and changed to strictly merit based with some exceptions of course like children and spouses.

    1. Yup. Rapid mass migration will only cause enormous tensions. The Alt-Right is only half joking when they talk about Right Wing Death Squads. If things get too far out of whack, you can bet your ass those jokes will become reality when people have put up with too much. It’s either make a reasonable compromise now, or an unreasonable snap back will happen in the future.

  41. Seriously, I don’t think the U.S. has *room* for more immigrants until a few people leave (I’m sure this site could generate some nominations). Biodiversity and reuniting families sound great but there aren’t enough decent jobs for the people who are already here.

    On the comedic level of the comments I’ve read, though…Right. All “nativists” should now gather the documentation that either (a) you’re an active member of a Native American nation, by birth, marriage, or adoption, or (b) you’re a direct descendant of one. Otherwise, good luck working out which part or parts of Europe or Africa you should go back to.

    Yes, I know that’s not even a fresh joke. I’m just surprised that this article hasn’t provoked fresher and funnier ones.

  42. The fact this broad is a “Senior reason analyst” confirms, once again, that reason has lost its way.

    And, for what it’s worth, since robots will be taking many of our jobs (or so the fear goes), having 8 million fewer workers by 2035 might not be such a bad thing, as it will make full employment for American citizens much easier.

  43. You have provided amazing detail in this blog. I liked your unique thinking. I admired your efforts. Thanks for sharing this wonderful post with me. Please keep me more update from your blog. I am very interested in your unique stories

    capsa susun online

  44. Online Safes Hotel WELKO Hotel Safe

    Commitment to genuine and new products 100%

    ? Commitment only gives customers the best products.

    ? Working from 7am to 10pm on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays

    ? Warranty statement, manual, home warranty for free.

    ? Payment on receipt and carefully checked (can transfer)

    ? Any questions about the product or need advice on fire safety.

  45. Wall won’t do anything, there is no reason not to build one and prove that. Kamar Set Mewah

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.